Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Nominations

Angeline Quinto discography

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After bringing Angeline Quinto's list of songs and awards to FL status, here's another related list I am nominating. I've worked on her discography by adding a concise and readable introduction/lead, formatted the tables, and thoroughly searched for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "Other songs from the album were also released as soundtracks for television shows" - I would say "Other songs from the album were also used on the soundtracks of television shows" would probably be more correct
  • "In 2018, Quinto was featured in Dingdong Avanzado's single" => "In 2018, Quinto was featured on Dingdong Avanzado's single"
  • For the section currently headed "Usages as soundtracks", I would simply this to "Soundtrack appearances"
  • That's all I got. Great work as ever from our leading Filipino pop contributor :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude, all actioned. Appreciate the very kind words ;) Hope to see more contributors in this space as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk
  • Under "Soundtrack appearances", the song "And I Love You So" is linked to a different song- is this a cover of that song? Clarify
Yes, the theme of the show is a cover version of the Don McLean song.
  • Perhaps include her songs and awards in a "See also" section?
Added
Added

Pseud 14, nothing else from me, fantastic work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much for your review MyCatIsAChonk. All comments actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 3)

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now, season 3! This season contains probably the most famous of LWT episodes, Donald Trump, which broke the HBO viewership record for any piece of content. Also, why not forgive $15 million in medical debt just to beat Oprah? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14

  • a second Peabody Award -- for the lead, since the first win seems to be for the previous season, and you are listing all awards won this season, perhaps only mention it as a Peabody Award.
  • that the show is "makes people dumb" -- that the show "makes people dumb"
  • 62 million views on Facebook -- worth linking Facebook
  • Great job as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pseud 14, all fixed- thank you so much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

Reserving a spot for later. Hopefully this is of similar quality to the season 2 list, which was very good.

Briefly:

  • Lead section, paragraph 2: "Episodes in the season were credited with influencing US law and culture, a phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect": the main segment of episode three, titled "Donald Trump", set an HBO viewership record and received widespread media attention; in episode fourteen, which covered debt buyers, Oliver forgave almost $15 million in medical debt for 9,000 Americans." - Perhaps this should be two sentences.

– Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1976

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the 24th nomination in this series of lists and this time round it's all (well, largely) about disco, baby :-) Feedback as ever most gratefully received -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
  • Use abbr template in the "Ref" column header
ChrisTheDude, I see nothing else, great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk - very cross with myself for forgetting that :-) Now fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14

  • more than one number one during the year; both acts had two chart-toppers -- more than one number one reads a bit repetitive or in close proximity with each other. Maybe tweak a bit like were the only two acts to achieve more than one chart-toppers, with two each or something alongs those lines.
  • That's all I got. Another great work in your series as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review. I've made a slight tweak. Not exactly what you suggested but hopefully it works....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reads even better. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of hominoids

Nominator(s): PresN 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next up in our journey of animal lists, we another list of primates (#32 in our series of animal FLCs). This list is the third of the six-ish subgroupings of the order Primates, following the lorisoids and cercopithecoids, and is another superfamily. This one you may recognize: it's us! Hominoidea (hominoids) contains Hominidae (hominids) contains Homo (humans), so there we are in our fur-less glory, which really does set us apart visually, and never mind the bipedalism. Besides humans, we have 27 species of gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, aka "apes". This one wasn't as hard to source, and is mostly filled out with pictures- people seem to care a bit more about our close relatives then they do about the endless minor varieties of southeast Asian monkeys. As always, the list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vat

The human list, I see! Nice to know the IUCN hasn't bothered to assess H. s. sapiens. (I have some confabulated memory of it once being "Least concern"?). I'll make a full read later, but a query: is this intentionally a list exclusive to extant families? Sorry if this is an obvious question; I haven't seen so many of the prior lists. It may be worth making it a little more explicit in the lead, though I'm unsure if FLC prohibits breaking the fourth wall that way, so to speak? I can read the "sorry, we don't know well enough" undertone in the lead after I stopped jumping around and read through it, but I'm not sure if every reader would read this implication well enough, and in the absence of an explication the absence of Neandertals et al stands out. Vaticidalprophet 13:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, all the prior lists restricted themselves to extant species and species that went extinct post-1500 CE. The reasoning being that paleontological taxonomy is extremely unstable and decentralized. I have more extensive lists of fossil cats that some paleo databases, for example, and paleontologists frequently disagree over what species and genera are valid or not, and the apparent consensus can change without warning. Oh, and new species, genera, and even higher-level taxa are named every year. Some earlier lists did have fossil taxa sections, which have since been removed as unmaintainable. SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the "The twenty-eight extant species of Hominoidea" line that starts the second paragraph is supposed to indicate that this does not include prehistoric species, and then Classification starts with "The superfamily Hominoidea consists of two extant families: Hominidae and Hylobatidae." And yeah, the IUCN doesn't evaluate humans (or domesticated "pet" animals like cats or dogs, actually). --PresN 15:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of international goals scored by Emmanuel Adebayor

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emmanuel Adebayor is a Togolese former footballer who played for the Togo national team for almost two decades, he also played for European giants such as Arsenal, Manchester City and Real Madrid. With the national team he scored 32 goals in 87 caps (excluding a non-FIFA rec cap, according to the RSSSF), cementing himself as arguably the greatest football export from Togo.

I created this list a few months ago and I now believe it is FL standard. This is the 7th list of international goals I've nominated for featured status and I think these are almost always a speedy review due to their simplicity. Thanks in advance. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "87 FIFA recognised" => "87 FIFA-recognised" (also in the image caption)
  • "He made his international debut against Zambia on 8 July 2000 in a FIFA World Cup qualification match, he scored" - comma before "he scored" should be a semi-colon
  • "qualification win against Swaziland (Eswatini since 2018) on 11 October 2008, he scored four goals in the match" - so should that one
  • "Adebayor helped Togo qualify for their first and only FIFA World Cup" - I would change that to simply "their first FIFA World Cup", as it might not be their only one forever
  • "With the remainder of his goals, five, have come in friendlies." => "The remainder of his goals, five, have come in friendlies."
  • "Adebayor scored in his final game for Togo against Benin in March 2019, he later" - comma should be a semi-colon
  • "helped glorify Togolese football" - I really don't think that "glorify" is the right word here. I would suggest "helped raise the profile of Togolese football"
  • "Does not include the match against Burkina Faso on 14 August 2012, it was not considered a full A-international match by FIFA, but it is for the Togolese Football Federation." => "Does not include the match against Burkina Faso on 14 August 2012. The match is not considered a full A-international match by FIFA, but is by the Togolese Football Federation."
  • That's what I got....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All addressed. Cheers @ChrisTheDude. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk/Source review

I see no issues with the content and prose, so great job! I'll do a source review while I'm at it- no spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Is AfroSport Now reliable?
  • All the links to National Football Teams are showing up dead for me. If that's the case for you too, add "dead" to the url-status= parameter

Idiosincrático, I got nothing else, very nice work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't 100% sure on the AfroSport Now citation as it seems to be a relatively new outlet, I've changed the phrasing a bit and replaced it with a few other sources including Sports Illustrated, Goal and Vanguard Nigeria, which is seemingly rather reputable. As for the National football teams sources, each of the links are working for me and the website is working very well, its a site used commonly on these types of articles. Perhaps the site is geoblocked for where you live, or maybe an ad-blocker? Cheers @MyCatIsAChonk. Idiosincrático (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Schedule V Controlled Substances (US)

Nominator(s): Irruptive Creditor (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has extensive and comprehensive citations for each of its listed items. In addition, I believe it meets the criteria. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is far too short to be a featured list. You need much more description in the lead of what a drug being listed in schedule V even means. How are they controlled? The other lists are shorter than I expected, I'd recommend merging all five schedules into one article for a better list. Also "Controlled Substance" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized in the title. Reywas92Talk 16:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this assessment; I moved the page to correct the typo, but some revision is needed in the content itself. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Reywas and Chonk. Controlled substances are an interesting subject and it'd be great to see a list about them at FLC, but this list doesn't yet provide the necessary context. Imagine a reader going through Special:Random -- if they see this list, will they understand what it's about? Our list of featured lists has a few medical examples; the selection is sparse, but it'd be good to look at and get an idea of what to work towards. I'm sorry to oppose, and I'd like to see this list worked on and resubmitted. Vaticidalprophet 18:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by No Time to Die

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 06:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After the Skyfall accolades article becomes a featured list, I will nominate this one too! Chompy Ace 06:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "becoming the third consecutive series theme song (starring Craig)...." - this reads a bit oddly, as it kinda sounds like he starred in the songs. I would suggest changing to "becoming the third consecutive theme song from a film starring Craig as Bond....."
  • That's it, I think - great work as ever on these lists! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 10:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I just thought of something else (on the same sentence). You say "the third consecutive theme song [....] after Skyfall (2012) and Spectre", but Skyfall and Spectre are films, not songs, so you should really name the songs. So it should be "the third consecutive theme song [....] after "Skyfall" (from the 2012 film of the same name) and "Writing's on the Wall" (from Spectre)". Sorry for not thinking of that earlier...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChrisTheDude, done again. Chompy Ace 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk
  • If you sort the Recipients header from A to Z, why does "Ana de Armas" sort with the C/Es?

That's it, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, Ana is a first name while de Armas is a surname. Chompy Ace 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - thanks for clarifying, great job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of books bound in human skin

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 02:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthropodermic bibliopegy lurks the shadows of the collective consciousness, manifesting in the form of dark occult grimoires, Nazi atrocities, French Revolution contumacies, and lurking serial killers. The truth is stranger than any myth; most books bound in human skin come from respected 19th-century doctors, men acting with the approval of their peers and untethered by ethical qualms. The history of anthropodermic bibliopegy is the history of medical ethics, one of those histories where every law is written in blood.

The full list of books seriously thought to be bound in human skin is short enough for this to be as comprehensive as a semi-dynamic list will ever allow. Some authors chronology longer lists, but these generally predate the capacity for serious testing and have so little written on them as to make including them irrelevant; on the other hand, the number of books that have undergone gold-standard testing is so short even the ones with very little known are worth mentioning, and I've mentioned all I can. It's a fascinating story of medical overreach, ethical debate, and the historical dedication that lurks in the soul of every archivist. I recently split this list from the main anthropodermic bibliopegy article, which is currently in poor shape and had a rather outdated and speculative version of it. This is my first FLC (but not my first featured content), but from consultation with editors more experienced in the process than I, I believe it's ready for prime time. Vaticidalprophet 02:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from PMC

Putting myself down to comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • In the lead, "the existence of 18 books bound in human skin, out of 31 claimed cases" - is this 31 claims ever, or 31 claims that they tested?
    • Tweaked to 'tested', though the number of total claims also seems really low. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the first book confirmed through its use" might be nice to put what year this was done, or maybe what year peptide testing was invented at least
    • An earlier version had it, but it got trimmed out at some point (maybe that was during the Dark Archives FAC, because this is adapted from that background section). I remember trying to find a way to put it back in and finding they all read weirdly. I've reworded here (produces "in 2014", but eh, it's not like the article's at risk of proseline). This and other additions produced a very overstuffed second paragraph, though, so I've split it at what's hopefully a vaguely natural point. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The first mention of executed criminals comes in the 3rd paragraph of the lead, I might mention it a bit earlier first to set it up
    • Now it's even lower! Yay. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I've moved it up to the...uh...third paragraph. I've also tweaked the confirmed sentence again, because it sucks and I hate it I think there's still some workshopping to do here. Vaticidalprophet 11:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is your sort order based on? I can't see any logic to it. It's not alphabetical by book and although I see that you've grouped by collection, the collections don't seem to be alphabetical to me either. If it's by testing/confirmation date, you might want to make that explicit by adding a column.
    • I swear there is an order here, but it may not be apparent to any other person in the entire world. Having said that, there's much more of one for the confirmed books, because I had multiple "oh shit, forgot one [adds to end of list]" for the latter tables. I'll see what I can do about making the there's-an-order-I-swear clearer for the others. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • At the very least, if the default sort order is arcane, I would recommend putting a note explaining it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It's based on vibes. There are definitely vibes here, I swear. (More formally, 'thematically similar' things are meant to be close to one another, but I'll see what I can do about making the...theme...apparent to anyone else, especially in the later sections where it's weaker.) Vaticidalprophet 09:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Shuffled a bit...is it at all clearer now? There are definitely 'thematic' groupings/similar books and claims near one another. The arrangement of those clusters is a little more arbitrary -- I've tried to put stranger or more attention-getting claims higher up. Vaticidalprophet 10:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why does "Essai sur les lieux..." have no comments at all? The empty cell stands out
    • God, it does, doesn't it? Given how many times this has been queried now, I'm considering adding something along the lines of "mentioned in Rosenbloom's list with no further details", cited to that list. Do you think that's...not going to get OR-accusations? I mean, there are no further details. {{cite entire rest of book}}? Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I don't see why it wouldn't work. I got away with something similar at Neptune, where I note that one author didn't even bother to remark on the clothing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Same question about sorting applies to all the tables
  • I might split up "supposed" into two tables - supposed individual copies, and widely-printed books that have been generally believed to have some anthropodermic copies somewhere. So "De integritatis" would be in the first, but De Sade's books would be in the second. Or at least sort them so they're together.
  • Should the goat skin book not be under "inauthentic" or is that just for ones confirmed inauthentic by PMF?
    • I'm trying to go for "hard confirmed either way" in each table, yeah -- multiple books in the suspected table are pretty much confirmed either way, but you can't rule it out. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I might put a note to that effect somewhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all I have. No complaints/comments about the actual prose in the tables, which are fairly tight summaries of the circumstances. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much! First replies, including some changes and some queries. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I still don't love the vibes-based sort order, but given that it's easily sortable for the reader, I don't feel it's worth dying over. The rest of my comments have been reasonably addressed, so I'm a support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

I audibly gasped when I saw this hit the FLC list. Fantastic work- truly deserving of Wikipedia:Unusual articles! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Add Template:Use British English or otherwise appropriate
  • Should "The Gold Bug" be sorted at the top? I'd think it sorts with the rest of the "G"s
  • it "disappeared" in the 1990s. - why quotes? Is it not really gone?
  • Many of the citations are all to different pages to the Dark Archives, but it just duplicates the citation. IMO, putting Dark Archives in a "works cited" section and using sfns is much cleaner, or you can have one citation to Dark Archives and use Template:rp for the pages
  • IMO, the "Notes" column doesn't need to be sortable
  • Ref columns don't need to be sortable either

Vaticidalprophet, all done, fantastic job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for the review! I've added the BrEng template (usually I'd try to standardize to Oxford spelling, but this article has so few uses of ize/ise words it's easier to go for the more recognizable one). On the other points:
  • I've tried to sort a little more by collection and theme (i.e. what readers actually see in the Notes section -- putting all the Hough books alongside each other, etc) than alphabetical, because I think that's a little more reader-friendly and because people who want specifically alphabetical orders can arrange it that way. I haven't made all that many lists, though, and I'm willing to discuss that.
    • I think the default sorting is fine, but I was unclear on what I meant, sorry. When you click the "Book" header under Confirmed, it sorts alphabetically from A to Z. Poe's story is appearing at the top because it starts with a quotation mark, but I believe it should sort with the "G"s. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Disappeared" is what the source says and doesn't elaborate, so I quoted. I'm guessing along the lines that it hasn't been accounted for in the library since the 90s.
    • Ok; I think you should add "according to the library, the book 'disappeared'" somewhere near it; otherwise, it may insinuate theft or some other act that's unrelated to it (at least, that's what I think of when I see "disappeared" in quotes like that) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of shortened footnotes (it looks 'cleaner' to an editor, but readers from non-academic backgrounds don't necessarily recognize them -- I've seen edit wars moving sfns to 'further reading' because they "aren't references"). For rp, in this case the chapter titles are relevant in and of themselves because of one such chapter being a list of known anthropodermic books in libraries.
  • I haven't made a ton of tables, so I'm not sure how I'd go about making some sections sortable and some not. Any advice?
Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vaticidalprophet Responses above MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've fixed the table sorting and not-sorting, and reworded the Belgian library statement a bit to avoid a direct quote while getting across the intent of the source. Vaticidalprophet 03:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - excellent job! By the way, if you get time, would appreciate comment at this FLC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger

Placeholder, ping me when Chonk is done with their review. I, too, was excited to see this at FLC, and can't wait to see what you do with the main article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SilverTiger12, Chonk has supported if you still want to comment :) Vaticidalprophet 02:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I do, I just didn't want you to have to deal with two (potentially conflicting) reviews at once. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The ability to unequivocally identify book bindings as being of human skin dates only to the mid-2010s. "only dates back to"
  • The origin of peptide mass fingerprinting permitted conclusive testing.. "The development of.."
  • Most legitimate anthropodermic books have passed through the hands of physicians, and many of them are dedicated to the practice of medicine. I get what you are trying to say here, but I feel like you could be clearer about it. Most of these books were bound by physicians- I think it's being implied that they were re-bound, unless these were new books being bound- right? And most of them seem to be about the practice of medicine and medical topics.
  • ...bibliopegy expert Megan Rosenbloom relatesconnects this to changing standards...
  • Another book from Hough's collection believed to trace to Lynch. "traced to" sounds like a massive understatement.
  • Another book from Hough's collection, speculated to be bound quite late in his life... "bound later in his life". And in that same entry, last sentence, remove the comma between authentic and due.
    • Well, not necessarily. The timeline on these bindings isn't great. I'll see if I can revise the others a little, actually -- I think they were all bound around a similar time, but this one is chronologically distinct from the others (the skin itself is much later, and it doesn't seem to have been done professionally). Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've tried to clarify the timelines here a bit -- it's tricky. Vaticidalprophet 14:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is that supposed to be a semicolon and not a comma after Cincinnati Public Library?
    • Yes. There are confirmed copies of that book in the University of Cincinnati Library and in the Cincinnati Public Library, which are different places. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why does the Poems of Various Subjects have the While several purportedly anthropodermic books have made claims about the race or ethnicity of the people used to bind them, all such copies have turned out to be inauthentic. - it feels like it's going somewhere with that, like they're the only books where the race/ethnicity claims are authentic - but then it doesn't. Also, how many copies?
    • Two, presumably, or at least if one of the libraries has multiple copies Rosenbloom didn't see fit to mention (which would be odd). I'm not sure where else to go with that summary; we don't know any details about the people whose skin was used to bind those copies, including their race. We do know that other, different books that explicitly mention race are fake. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Honestly, I would suggest removing that whole sentence since the same information is also given more generally in the lede, since such claims don't seem to have been made about Poems specifically. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I've tried to revise this and get across the idea more clearly (it's hard to get that nuance in a table). There's a lot of speculation on why books by the first black woman publishing in the US, specifically, were anthropodermic, and it'd be amiss not to mention it at all, but there's no evidence to base anything off so it's all very up in the air. Vaticidalprophet 07:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The last two entries of the confirmed list are very short on information. Is there really nothing more that can be added?
    • The fully blank one I tried very hard for and turned up nothing. The last one there might be some more -- I'll see if and what can be revised -- but it would still be on the shorter end. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If the information isn't out there, then it's not out there- a disappointing but uncontrollable circumstance. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overall, in the suspected list, I'd like you to be a little more consistent about why a given book hasn't or can't be tested- some are apparently lost, some the library in question refuses to allow testing, but some you just don't explain why.
    • If I don't explain why, I don't know why, unfortunately. In some cases the last source discussing the book is pre-2014 and I can't find further details on it at all. Rosenbloom does give a little detail on different reasons why a book might be untestable, so I'll add a little on that to the lead, which should hopefully cover most cases. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've added a little to the lead about reasons an organization may decline testing. Vaticidalprophet 14:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In that same vein, you could stand to more consistently mention when the books were tested.
  • Source-wise, everything looks fine except the use of Facebook as a source, which I consider... questionable at best.
    • FB in this case is the official University of Memphis Library page, which I'm using as ABOUTSELF -- Gordon, the other cite, cuts off before the book was officially tested, and the primary source is the one that makes it clear it was found to be inauthentic. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's pretty much it from me. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks so much for your review! I've replied to a few of these and will work on general tweaks/expanding the lead a little. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SilverTiger12, I think most of these should be handled now. I've tweaked "passed through the hands of physicians", though I'm not sure if saying something that implies they were all bound by doctors is quite supported by the source, so it's still a little evasive. The "dates back to" one I think is mostly a subjective wording difference. How do you feel about the article right now? Vaticidalprophet 13:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. This list is well-written, informative, and fascinating. It manages to lay out details about the books and the practice without veering into the lurid and sensational, which I consider quite a feat. Though some might say a clinical, matter-of-fact tone makes it all the more chilling... --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Hey man im josh

Image review:

  • Images are relevant
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text

Support: Looks good and it was a great read. Thanks for the work that you put into this. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of National Football League annual scoring leaders

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is #8 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders. Formatting is based off of past successful featured lists from the series. As always, I will do my best to respond and address issues as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
  • Nowhere in the lead is "scoring leader" defined- this is likely very simple, but I'm not sure if it means something else (I have no AmE football knowledge); perhaps define it somewhere
  • As above, I'm struggling to understand something- all the ways to score points that you described in para 1 seem to be done by the team, but the list only describes individuals having points. What's going on here?

Hey man im josh, I see no other issues- again, apologize for my lack of knowledge on the subject! Excellent work on the tables! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @MyCatIsAChonk, thank you for taking the time to review my nomination. I believe I've better defined who the scoring leader is and how that's determined. The wording can be a little clunky when trying to describe these concepts, so please do tell me if it's not clear enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - much better! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment
  • I concur with MyCatIsAChonk - the lead would benefit from clarification that in the case of a touchdown, the player scoring it is credited with the points, in the case of a kicking player the kicker is credited with the points..........are those the only options? I confess my knowledge of American football is not that wonderful either..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's also striking that it always used to be non-kickers who were the leaders and now it's pretty much kickers all the way. Is there a reason why the game has evolved in this way that could (if appropriately sourced) be mentioned in the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hey @ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for the feedback. I've made some changes that I hope address your concerns. Kicking and scoring a touchdown are the primary ways of scoring, with a safety being the only other way to score, though these are not common.
The positional changes over time are more to do with the fact that positions in football were often not well defined early on in the league's history. As time went on, teams began to have dedicated, specialized placekickers, whereas before then the person who kicked field goals would usually be someone who played a different position on the team. In fact, if I were to do a full break down of how each player scored their points, you would find that a lot of the early "non-kickers" were actually kicking in addition to their regular duties. Don Hutson, the player who led the league in five consecutive seasons, has actually scored by rushing, receiving, returning interceptions, kicking, AND causing a safety! You can see this at the scoring summary section of this page. This means that Hutson scored in all 3 phases of football (offense, defense, and special teams), which would be unheard of nowadays. In short though, it's been the evolution of the game to have people become more specialized in positions instead of playing multiples like Don Hutson did. I considered trying to explain this in the lead, but I felt as though when working on it that it ended up being too heavily based on synthesis. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 2)

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First season has three supports, so I'll go ahead with the second! Like last season, this one also influenced current events; the president of FIFA resigned two days after an episode aired on the 212015 corruption scandal, and in another instance, New York's bail policy was changed after a LWT episode aired on the topic. Excited for comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh
  • Image review: Passed
    • Image isrelevant
    • Image is appropriately licensed
    • Image has alt text
  • Source review: Passed
    • Reliable enough for the information being cited
    • Consistent date formatting
    • Consistent publisher formatting
    • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
    • Link checker not currently working, so I can't check with that

Looks good! Support -- Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14

  • On the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes -- on the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes
  • than Trevor Noah-hosted The Daily Show. -- than the Trevor Noah-hosted The Daily Show
  • I would link the first instance of The Daily Show, and suggest including the network Comedy Central to precede it.
  • That's all I got. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pseud 14, all done, thank you so much for the prompt review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • "The show continued to release the main stories of each episode on their" => "The show continued to release the main stories of each episode on its" (show is singular)
  • "They also highlighted" - who is "they"?
  • "on the teams selection process" => "on the team's selection process"
  • "Oliver worked as the British Correspondent" - no need for capital on correspondent
  • "David Waywell writing in The Spectator opined that the first seasons of Last Week Tonight" => "David Waywell writing in The Spectator opined that the first seasons of Last Week Tonight" Do you mean simply the first (in which case "seasons" should be singular) or the first few (in which case I would suggest changing "first" to "early" for total clarity)
  • "The premiere broadcast of season two received 720,000 viewers [....] for the night, the episode garnered 846,000 viewers" - I have to confess I don't understand this. How did it receive both amounts of viewers?
  • "had average 1.396 million total viewers per episode," => "had an average 1.396 million total viewers per episode," or "averaged 1.396 million total viewers per episode,"
  • "a system that Oliver accused of disproportionately affected" => "a system that Oliver accused of disproportionately affecting"
  • "the mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio announced the city" => "the mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio announced that the city"
  • "though, Oliver later denied influencing the decision, stating" => "Oliver later denied influencing the decision, however, stating"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude all fixed, thank you so much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

Staking a claim here. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought I would review this, since I love LWT (quite coincidentally, the LWT studio is within a stone's throw of my workplace).
Quick comments:
  • Lead, paragraph 1: "The season was produced by Avalon Television, the executive producers were host John Oliver, Tim Carvell, and Liz Stanton" - The comma after "Television" should be a semicolon, otherwise you have a run-on sentence like this.
  • Lead, paragraph 2: "The show continued to release the main stories of each episode on its YouTube channel after airing." - I'd rephrase the last part of this sentence slightly, e.g. "after each episode aired".
  • Production, paragraph 1: "Tim Carvell, John Oliver, and Liz Stanton were the executive producers on the season, with Diane Fitzgerald as producer. Writers include Oliver, Carvell, Kevin Avery, Josh Gondelman, Dan Gurewitch, Geoff Haggerty, Jeff Maurer, Scott Sherman, Will Tracy, Jill Twiss, and Juli Weiner. Paul Pennolino directed the season." - Is there a reason that this paragraph goes from past to present to past tense?
  • Production, paragraph 2: "The material also highlighted the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel, where the main stories of each episode were released after airing." - Out of curiosity, was the previous season not on YouTube?
  • Production, paragraph 2: "the size of the research team at Last Week Tonight was increased from one researcher to four" - I'd just say "the research team at Last Week Tonight was expanded from one researcher to four".
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epicgenius, the previous season was definitely on YouTube after the Scottish Independence Referendum episode- this is mentioned in the season one article. I'm not sure if the others were (looking at the channel itself, it seems like some segments were posted along with various ads, but they don't seem to be in order or broadcast). Got everything else (can't believe I caught those typos)- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional comments:
  • Critical reception: "Lucas Kavner writing in Vulture called it, "easily the most enjoyable way to relive some of this year’s most infuriating news."" - I would remove the comma after "called it". (Conversely, I'd optionally put commas before and after "writing in Vulture", but it's not necessary, and you'd have to change "David Waywell writing in The Spectator" and ""Government Surveillance" was rated the best episode of the season by Matthew Strauss writing in Inverse".)
  • Ratings: "after replays, the episode garnered 846,000 viewers." - Does this include both the premiere broadcasts and reruns. but not YouTube views?
  • Influence: "Episode fifteen of season two covered the 2015 FIFA corruption case, being the second time Last Week Tonight covered FIFA." - I'd reword this, as you pretty much say "covered FIFA" twice.
  • Influence: "A month after the episode aired, the mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio announced that the city would lower bail requirements for people accused of misdemeanors and nonviolent crimes;[18][26] Oliver later denied influencing the decision, however, stating that the requirements were already in the process of being changed when the episode aired.[27]" - Do we need to say "however"? If not, could these just be two separate sentences?
I don't see any other issues with this list. Once these issues are resolved, I think I can support this FLC. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epicgenius, I didn't include the "writing in __" so it conforms with the other season articles, but I definitely see how it could be helpful. For "after replays", I double checked the source and realized it was talking about the end of s1... my bad, thanks for bringing that up. Fixed everything else accordingly- thank you so much for the review on this and s3! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. I am happy to support as it looks good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by Avengers: Infinity War

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 06:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the fourth MCU film to nominate to a featured list, with similar formats to other WP:FLs. Chompy Ace 06:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN-Jungwon
  • Image review passed: alt text looks good and the file is appropriately licensed.
  • I noticed that the unlike other lists you nominated, the awards column is aligned in the center in this list. Shouldn't this be kept similar between all these lists?

That's all from me. -- EN-Jungwon 17:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN-Jungwon, done. Chompy Ace 19:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 16:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1980/1981

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this list is in line with the standards for the Snooker world ranking lists for the previous years which are featured lists. In 1980/1981, Ray Reardon still topped the rankings as he had since 1976. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
  • Add Template:Use British English or other
  • Aren't refs 3 and 5 to the same site?
  • Location use in the refs is inconsistent; ref 1 has the city, while ref 7 has the same publisher but no city, yet ref 8 has a city and it has no publisher

BennyOnTheLoose, nothing else from me, another great article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - I got nothing, you know what you are doing with these lists :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from EnthusiastWorld37

That's all I have for this list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. I've made the amendments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of tapaculos

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another bird list, this time the somewhat larger and lot more homogenous family that is the tapaculos. There are technically 65 species recognized by the IOU, but I'd say around 40 of them are clones of each other that no sane person would bother differentiating; taxonomists are not particularly good at avoiding such activities, so here we are. Have at it! AryKun (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Comments from SilverTiger

Ooh, another list!

I'm hoping to get through a nice portion of the non-passerines before the end of the year, especially the smaller (<50 species) orders and families.
Nice, you can probably expect me to show up at a fair number of them. I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but are hummingbirds or owls likely to show up soon? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm currently trying to do the smaller orders, hummingbirds is really really huge. I'll probably do it at genus level (113 genera) and then also have separate species-level lists for four of the subfamilies (Florisuginae, Phaethornithinae, Lesbiinae [this is definite DYK bait], and Trochilinae). Owls is also probably done best at genus level, and then I don't really know what rank you could have a species-level list at. AryKun (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strigidae and Tytonidae are the next level below Strigiformes, which makes it the natural division for the lists. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strigidae has like 200 species by itself, but does seem to have three subfamilies, so I guess you could makes lists for those. AryKun (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will point out, List of parrots is 402 species and is currently an FL. So lists of several hundred species are definitely possible. But it is ultimately your call. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of parrots is honestly absurdly long and needs to be split up to be of use. At that length, the reader's eyes are probably going to glaze over a fourth of the way through; any list longer than 150 species is probably too long. AryKun (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It probably could be split along superfamily or family lines, true. But nonetheless I would hesitate to make lists for anything below family level (at least for vertebrates), with few exceptions. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see we shouldn't make lists of families at genus level and then make subfamily lists at species level. Some of the larger passerine families (tanagers, Old World flycatchers, tyrant flycatchers) would be really unwieldy at species level. AryKun (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ...best detected by their vocalizations. and ...are best identified by their vocalizations. - repetition.
    • Changed second instance to "calls"
  • Is the plural tapaculos or tapaculo? You seem to use both in the lede.
    • Both are alright I think, changed to "tapaculos" everywhere to be consistent.
  • ...with more than 30 species being described from the region. "having been described", or "endemic to that region".
    • Changed to "having been described".
  • ...are difficult to differentiate on the basis of appearance and are generally described based on the basis of genetic data...
    • Done.
  • Conventions and Classification sections are good.
  • "Boa Nova tapaculo" redirects to an article under a different name. Why the difference?
    • Article's at the wrong name, IOC uses Boa Nova on the checklist.
  • The rest of the table itself looks fine, although you're right those are a bunch of "small brown birds" that most people including me would not bother to tell apart. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Since no-one else seems interested:

  • Spot checks of sources 3, 22, 44, and 62 match what they're being cited for.
  • All citations are to reliable source.
  • No copyvio per Earwig (really, I think copyvio in these lists is night impossible)

Therefore, pass source review. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd have to be a really special kind of editor add copyvio into an article with essentially 2 paragraphs of non-boilerplate text. AryKun (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of presidents of New York University

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New York University was founded in 1831 and has had 17 permanent presidents. A fairly short article, this lists all of them. I based this on List of presidents of Georgetown University, which I had promoted to FL status. Ergo Sum 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChrisTheDude
  • Mills seems to be the first female president - worth a mention if you can source it
  • Any chance the photo captions could be made more informative than just the person's name?
    • I was trying to keep the captions minimal, since the list really should be predominant. I used the Georgetown presidents list as a template for the image captions. I'm not sure what else the captions would say that the reader might find useful, as opposed to clicking on the subject's article link and reading further there. Ergo Sum 15:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In Bennett's note you use a full stop to separate two factoids, whereas everywhere else you use a semi-colon
    • I did that to separate the statement about his leadership of NYU from the statement about his other positions. Also borrowed from the Georgetown presidents list. Ergo Sum 15:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk
  • I don't love the current division of the lead- I think the fourth para could be merged with the third, and the third could even be merged with the second. Your choice though
    • I've merged the third and fourth paragraphs. Those pertain to rather transient facts, while the second paragraph is about facts that are structural and unlikely to change. Ergo Sum 15:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The president recommends persons to fill - persons? No, people
    • I tend to like the distinction of "persons" is for multiple individuals separately and "people" is for multiple individuals collectively, but I realize "persons" is less common. I've changed it. Ergo Sum 15:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The tooltext for Ref. should just say "Reference" since "Ref." insinuates singularity
    • That is the automatic output of the template and contemplates the addition of future references. Ergo Sum 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 4 needs a website/work

Ergo Sum, all done, good work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 15:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - very nice job. If you get time, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1975

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list for 1974 has already got three supports, so I figure there's no harm in nominating 1975. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14

  • Maybe worth linking black music
  • including one which spent two weeks in the top spot but non-consecutively - spent two non-consecutive weeks
  • would achieve little further success in chart terms - perhaps it can be written as moderate success instead?
  • for the table header add {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • Suggest tweaking the caption for the Staples singers (as you did with the 1972 list) to avoid the parenthetical within a parenthetical.
  • That's all I got. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NØ

  • "related African American-oriented music genres; the chart has undergone various name changes over the decades to reflect the evolution of such genres" - do you think this sentence could do without the "of such genres" part to avoid repetition?
  • Either "top" or "topped" appears in every single sentence in the lead's last paragraph. Some variation is possible if you use "summit", "crowned", "pinnacle", or something like that. (apologies for my weird suggestions, you may be able to think of something better)
  • "Ten of 1975's soul number ones also topped the all-genre Hot 100 listing." - Maybe avoid starting the sentence with a number: "Among 1975's soul number ones, ten also topped the all-genre Hot 100 listing."
  • "had already topped the Hot 100 in late 1974, and reached the top of the soul chart" - I believe there shouldn't be a comma here.
  • Image review passes as far as I can tell since everything seems to be properly licensed and in line with other lists in this series.--NØ 07:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan: - many thanks for your review, all addressed I think with this edit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh

  • Source review: Sources all seem to be reliable enough and are well formatted. I'm not finding any issues and neither is the link checker.
  • Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk

Support - excellent work as always- happy to have no comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Canada

Nominator(s): Tone 08:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canada has 20 WHS and 12 on the tentative list. Standard style for this type of articles. The list for Costa Rica is already seeing support so I am adding another nomination. Tone 08:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
  • Canada has served as a member of the World Heritage Committee four times, 1976–1978, 1985–1991, 1995–2001, and 2005–2009. - after "four times" I suggest using a colon instead of a comma
  • Centuries use "th" per MOS:CENTURY - looking specifically at "11-century", but there may be other instances
  • The complex contains eight turf houses, three of which were dwellings, one forge, and four workshops used for ship repair. - using commas for "three of which were dwellings" makes it look like part of the list; use parantheses to avoid confusion: "The complex contains eight turf houses (three of which were dwellings), one forge, and four workshops used for ship repair.
  • The site at Joggins has produced some of the best fossil record from the Carboniferous period... - fossil record? Do you mean fossil records? Or possibly fossils recorded?
  • a historical photo from Chilkoot Pass in 1898 is shown - replace shown with "pictured"
  • No image for Qajartalik?
  • The landscape in the high Arctic is defined by ice, however... - semicolon after ice

Tone, all done, very nice work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for checking! Fossil record is the correct term, and there is no free image for Qajartalik (the one in the dedicated article is fair use, which does not fly in this one). Fixed the rest. Tone 16:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indianapolis 500 Rookie of the Year

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This list is about the winners of the Indianapolis 500 Rookie of the Year and the Indianapolis 500 Fastest Rookie of the Year. I began reworking this list in December 2022 and now believe it meets the FLC criteria. All comments are warmly welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
  • I don't quite understand the point of the quotes in the opening sentences, these could very easily be paraphrased (and, IMO, they should be)
  • Is there any other photo that could be in the infobox? The current one is rather ghastly (no offense to uploader)
  • Sportsmanship is a drivers' relationship to fellow racers and fans - "with" fellow racers...
  • Voters are encouraged by the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (IMS) - who votes is defined? Also, does the speedway itself encourage them, or does the organization that runs it encourage them?
  • Competitors who outperform in their equipment during qualifying and the race, as well as those who led laps but retired, are given leeway. - could be my lack of knowledge on IndyCar, but what does "led laps but retired" and "given leeway" mean in this context?
  • It has formerly been sponsored by - who sponsors it now?
  • The rules state that the driver must be a rookie - likely worth defining rookie or linking to a definition page
  • drivers were evaluated on their willingness to follow United States Auto Club regulations, mental attitude, willingness to listen - willingness is used twice; replace one of them with a different word
  • The term "appearance" was defined by officials in 1958 as a driver who paid for or took part in prize money for one of the race's 33 starting spots. - why is this sentence here? Appearance is not mentioned in any of the criteria; in fact, this is the only time "appearance" is seen in the prose
    • Clarified that this was a rule change regarding who would be counted as a rookie from 1958 onward 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  • They disqualified drivers - who's they?
  • It was established - "the award" was established, or similar; just don't use a pronoun to start a paragraph
  • Wl "points-based voting system" to Positional voting
  • The Herff-Jones Co. spent $6,000 - when? If before 2000, we should get a price in parentheses or an efn that says the price adjusted for modern inflation
  • It features the number 500 - avoid "it" here, as you've now brought many parts of the trophy into the question, so I'm not sure what "it" is
  • Footnote d: if the years are stated in the other footnote listing price changes, years should be listed here too
  • Under "References" what is the point of the "General" subheader? I cannot find any sfns or other references that direct to those
    • I was using those to verify the extra details in the main tables but have incorporated the references into the main ref list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EnthusiastWorld37, quite a few issues with the prose, but I'm sure you'll get them fixed up well! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Costa Rica

Nominator(s): Tone 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Costa Rica has four WHS and one site on the tentative list. With the lists for Panama and Yemen just promoted, I am this time nominating a shorter list. Standard format. I am saving some longer ones for later (Canada, Argentina, India are more or less ready - suggestions which one to run next welcome!) Tone 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Actualcpscm

Thanks for this nomination! I only have one real comment:

  • It would be good to clarify this sentence: Costa Rica accepted the convention on 23 August 1977. What does "accepted" here mean? If they became signatory to the convention, did they ratify it on the same day?

Regarding your next list, I'd like to suggest Germany. By the way, what do you think about the maps used in that list? That's potentially useful. If Germany is an acceptable option for you, I'd be happy to work on it with you. I also speak German, so that might help with the sources. Thanks again for your work! Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ratified, indeed, per source. Fixed. Ha, yes, I may try to work on Germany once I am done with the current one. It will be a long one but interesting. Tone 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't mind, I'll get started with Germany :) It'd only be my second FLC, and the first is still ongoing. So if you want to hop in at some point, just let me know. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck! Follow the style of other FLs and use UNESCO sources as the primary material, in particular the actual justifications at criteria, and it should go smooth. I think I was mostly skipping Germany so far because of the map, but hey, it worked for Italy, so ... :D Tone 16:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
  • Add Template:Use British English or similar
  • ...including three bird and two reptile. - plural? If not, amend it with "species" to clarify
  • Wl pelagic species to pelagic fish
  • Stretching from the Pacific coast across the mountain range with the highest peak Rincón de la Vieja at 1,916 metres (6,286 ft) (pictured) to the lowlands on the Caribbean side, the area comprises numerous habitats. - the dependent clause in this is rather large, I think it could use a bit of rearranging- perhaps, "Stretching from the Pacific coast across Rincón de la Vieja, the mountain range with the highest peak at 1,916 metres (6,286 ft) (pictured), the area comprises numerous habitats."
  • Anytime "(pictured)" is referring to an image, I suggest italicizing it
  • Some of them reach more than 2.5 metres... - "some of the spheres..."

That's all from me, great work, as usual! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed, thanks! As for italicizing "pictured", this has been raised before. The thing is, some times I am using just (pictured), on other occasions this is a part of the sentence, so by not italicizing I am keeping it consistent. Tone 16:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • "This the only cultural site in Costa Rica" => "This is the only cultural site in Costa Rica"
  • "Most of the land is covered by tropical rainforests, however, there are also" => "Most of the land is covered by tropical rainforests, however there are also"
  • "The Costa Rican part of the site has been initially listed independently in 1983" => "The Costa Rican part of the site was initially listed independently in 1983"
  • "Stretching from the Pacific coast across Rincón de la Vieja, the mountain range with the highest peak of 1,916 metres (6,286 ft)" => "Stretching from the Pacific coast across Rincón de la Vieja,a mountain range with a highest peak of 1,916 metres (6,286 ft)"
  • "The sites remained safe from looting due to thick layers of sediments than covered them" => "The sites remained safe from looting due to thick layers of sediments that covered them"
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! I fixed all but the last, I do not find the difference between the original and suggested wording... Tone 19:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I added bold to make it clearer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Got it :) Tone 20:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel

Nominators: Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC), Hey man im joshReply[reply]

After Hey man im josh and I's extensive work on it, this list is finally complete. It would be great to have a FL to support Angela Merkel, which I plan to bring to FAC in the (hopefully not-too-distant) future after recently bringing it up to GA. Hey man im josh was kind enough to guide me through the process and do at least half the work on this list, thanks again for that! The most recent addition to Merkel's state honours (from Germany) received lots of media attention, and I expect that this list will continue to grow for at least a few years. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
  • Merkel was chancellor of Germany from... - "the" chancellor of Germany
  • ...and she was the first female chancellor of Germany. - remove "she", as the subject is already identified at the start of the sentence
  • Merkel has also commonly been described as leader of the free world. - "the" leader of the...
  • In all the tables, the least column's header should read "Ref(s)" since some cells have multiple
  • IMO, some of the things under "Awards" aren't awards, like Time Person of the Year. Perhaps change the header to "Awards and other honours" or something else more broad
  • Remove periods from captions that are not full sentences (e.g. "Merkel receiving the Bavarian Order of Merit in 2023." is not a complete sentence, therefore it should not have a period)

Actualcpscm, nothing else from me, excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: I've implemented all of your suggestions, aside from the last one. I chose to make the captions into complete sentences instead of removing the periods. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14

  • Merkel the world's second most powerful person in 2012 and 2015 and the world's most powerful woman fourteen times. -- might need a comma after 2015. That's all I got.
  • Support. Nothing else to quibble. An excellent, well-researched, and informative work. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pseud 14: I agree, I've added a comma which I think makes the lead flow better. Thank you very much for reviewing our work! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: Well prepared list documenting significant recognition of a world figure.--Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older nominations

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 1)

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where the chaos of Last Week Tonight began- of course, with a bang! Five episodes in, they transformed the Net Neutrality debate, settling Oliver's place in the late night show industry nicely.

I should clarify the reasoning for differing from most TV season articles. Talk shows are bad at naming their episodes- on Amazon, the episodes are just numbered. For this reason, the "Episode Title" is instead replaced with a "Main Segment" slot. As for the content of the episode summaries, using paragraphs seemed redundant, so I stuck with the descriptors that were there before. A note on sourcing: in the amazing HBO Max to "Max" transition, HBO removed seasons 1-7 of LWT from their site, so there's no actual way to watch old episodes in their entirety (unless you purchase the entire season on Amazon or elsewhere). Thankfully, Amazon retained the episode descriptions, so most summaries use info from Amazon or other news sites related to episodes. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14

  • Oliver time as host received positive reviews -- Oliver's time (possessive)
  • On the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes -- on the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes
  • "rushed and jam-packed with information." -- since you are not quoting the full sentence, period should be placed outside the quote
  • Worth linking YouTube both in the lead and in the body
  • an effect dubbed the "John Oliver effect" -- use of effect in close proximity to each other, perhaps dropping the first mention of effect should still work I believe.
  • That's all from me. Great job on John Oliver's series of work in the FL/FA space. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pseud 14, I've implemented all your comments, thank you for your review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. If you have spare time and interest, I'd also appreciate some feedback on my current FLC. Totally understand if you are busy though. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pamzeis

I've made a few copy edits here and there, which I hope you don't mind. Let's not screw this up.

  • "similar to that of Real Time with Bill Maher" — is this lead worthy? The rest of the article only gives it a passing mention
  • "implemented using comedic bits to split up" — "bits" sounds a bit (hehe, pun unintended) informal. Is there another word that can be used?
  • The "Critical reception" section is mostly a series of "X writing in Y felt Z"; I feel like this section could benefit from a bit of copy editing with help from WP:RECEPTION (which you've probably heard cited a million times)
    • I've made some changes and now it just has two "__ writing in __" statements- I had a hard time consolidating general opinion because there's very few articles reviewing the season as a whole (and only a few more for the first episode) so I was relatively limited here. Let me know if you think more should be cut. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "just over that of Real Time with Bill Maher" — what is Real Time? Is it a related show? The article doesn't give much context
  • Not a source review, but WP:IBTIMES is cited. If I had a nickel for every time I pointed out an IBTimes cite in a John Oliver article to you, I would have two nickels. That's not a lot, but it's funny that it happened twice.

Fun article :) Ping me in any replies! Pamzeis (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pamzeis: Many thanks for the review, all addressed! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey man im josh

Source review:

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Ref. 41 is a dead link for me and it does not have an archived version of the page available. Could you replace this reference or add an archive link (in case it's my network)?
  • Ref. 44 is listed as an expiring news link by the link checker and does not have an archived version of the page available
  • Link checker found no other issues aside from those I mentioned above

Additionally, the image needs alt text. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hey man im josh, think I've gotten everything, thank you very much! Also, what's this link checker you mention? Seems like a useful tool for my own reviews. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: The references are good now. Still would like alt text for the image in addition to the caption (even if they're close). Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey man im josh, Whoops, forgot about that- done! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Sorry about the delay in coming back to this @MyCatIsAChonk, I didn't really edit over the weekend. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing to worry about, thanks a ton! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TheUzbek

Overall a great list, just a couple of grammar fixes.

  • "Photo of Oliver wearing a suit and glasses while holding another pair in his hand. Large text above him reads" ----> "Photo of Oliver wearing a suit and glasses while holding another pair. The large text above him reads"
  • "The season contained 24 episodes, each featuring a main segment on that week's news story and a number of other smaller segments." -----> "The season contained 24 episodes, each featuring a main segment on that week's news story and several other smaller segments."
  • "Additionally, the main segments were posted to the show's YouTube channel after airing." ----> "The main segments were also posted to the show's YouTube channel after airing. "
  • "], was credited with influencing the Federal Communications Commission's decision to strongly regulate net neutrality, beginning an phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect"." -----> "], was credited with influencing the Federal Communications Commission's decision to strongly regulate net neutrality, beginning a phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect"."
  • "On the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, the season has an approval rating of 94% with an average score of 8.5 out of 10 based on 31 reviews." -----> "On the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, the season has an approval rating of 94%, with an average score of 8.5 out of 10 based on 31 reviews."
  • "In comparison, The Daily Show averaged 1.5 million viewers at the same time and The Colbert Report averaged 1.2 million viewers at 11:30 pm." ----> "In comparison, The Daily Show averaged 1.5 million viewers simultaneously, and The Colbert Report averaged 1.2 million viewers at 11:30 pm."
  • "In the two days after airing, the Society of Women Engineers received $25,000 in donations, which amounted to about 15% of the society's average annual donations." ----> "Two days after airing, the Society of Women Engineers received $25,000 in donations, which amounted to about 15% of the society's average annual donations."
Otherwise, great work! --TheUzbek (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheUzbek, thank you so much, can't believe I didn't catch those small mistakes! Should all be fixed now MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support TheUzbek (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of National Football League annual rushing touchdowns leaders

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is #7 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders. The formatting is based on past successful featured lists from the series and, if successful, would mark the completion of rushing related stats. As always, I will do my best to respond and make changes as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • This is my first time reviewing an FLC, so please bear with me :)
  • Is there a reason there is no table listing the players with the most seasons leading the league, similar to the one at List of National Football League annual rushing yards leaders#Most rushing titles or List of National Football League annual passing touchdowns leaders#Most seasons leading the league? If not, add it
  • In the first image caption, you say "LaDainian Tomlinson holds the single-season rushing touchdowns record, rushing for 28 touchdowns in 2006." The two instances of rushing so close together seems a little clunky, maybe change that second one to "running for 28 touchdowns".
  • These next two are more nitpicks and probably optional. The lede seems a little sparse, perhaps add something about the few players who achieved over 20 rushing touchdowns in one season?
  • Perhaps add a key to the AFL annual rushing touchdowns leaders section. While I would prefer it, I do get the rational behind not including one. ULPS (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback @ULPS.
    • Is there a reason there is no table listing the players with the most seasons leading the league... – Not really except that we haven't really standardized whether it should be included or not. You pointed to the two of the five NFL annual leader FLs that have such a table, while the other three FL do not. Never the less, after giving it some thought, I do think the table is useful so I've gone ahead and added it.
    • ...maybe change that second one to "running for 28 touchdowns". – Done
    • These next two are more nitpicks and probably optional. The lede seems a little sparse, perhaps add something about the few players who achieved over 20 rushing touchdowns in one season? – Added a mention that there has been eleven instances where a player has rushed for over 20 touchdowns in a season and that only two players have done so twice.
    • Perhaps add a key to the AFL annual rushing touchdowns leaders section. – I went back and forth on this one prior to the nomination. NFL lists are inconsistent when it comes to including the key in the AFL section, with the assumption apparently being that people will reference the key above the NFL table. After giving it some thought, we can't really go wrong by having the key relisted in the AFL section as well. I've included a key with the active player and HoF portion of the key removed, as those are not relevant to the AFL table (no active or HoF players in the table).
    I hope I've addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you think anything else can be improved. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - ULPS (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Query
  • The "most seasons leading the league" table doesn't include Cookie Gilchrist or Abner Haynes, so apparently it only includes the NFL players......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: That was a mistake on my part. When creating that "most seasons leading the league" I was looking at the NFL table and forgot to include the AFL table. I've now included both of those players in the table. Thank you for catching this, I feel silly having missed it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you! One of these days I'll stump you :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EN-Jungwon
  • Short description should be at the top. See MOS:ORDER
  • Priest Holmes is linked twice in the lead.
  • Is there a better |website= name for ref 8, 9 and 10

-- EN-Jungwon 10:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EN-Jungwon:
  • Short description has been moved to the top
  • Priest Holmes is no longer linked twice
  • I did not find a better website name for ref 8, but I did change the website name for refs 9, 10, and 13 here. Is this satisfactory?
Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 16:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk

Happy to do a source review! No spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. Will do soon- ping me if I forget by tomorrow! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ref 3's archived link isn't displaying anything for me, likely because Flash was deprecated
  • Ref 7 is displaying an error page for me
  • Ref 10: remove "| Official Site of the Dallas Cowboys" from title
  • Are the following reliable:
    • Sports Betting Dime
    • profootballnetwork.com (also, shouldn't this be formatted not as a url; "Pro Football Network" is what's in the logo at the top)
    • Pro Football History

Hey man im josh, all done, lovely work! Impressed you discovered my WikiCup strategy ;) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk, thank you so much for the feedback!
  • Ref 3's archive link works fine for me. Ref 2 & 3 both do not have "archived" hyperlinked because they have the archive link as the main link (dead link parameter). They instead have "the original" hyperlinked, which leads to the dead pages in question. Is this by any chance what you're referring to?
  • Ref 7 is a dead link and I made a mistake by not marking the reference as such. I've now marked the reference as a dead url.
  • Ref 10 -- done.
  • Reliability of references:
    • Sports Betting Dime – I do believe, given the context, we should be able to trust the definition of a football statistic from a betting website. Never the less, I've added an additional reference from a website called "Sports Charts" which I've seen used a fair bit in articles related to football definitions. It backs up the definition and I think, at least together, the references should be adequete.
    • Pro Football Network – Formatting fixed. It's contextually reliable and the information on the page is verifiable. This is used for ref 9 and the sentence before its usage uses ref 1. Ref 1 shows some of the same information but in a different format. I've added ref 1 to the the same sentence that I used this site for.
    • Pro Football History – The site can be crufty, that's for sure, but I've always found the "facts" they state to be verifiable. In this case, the reference is used to verify the fact that John Riggins led the league in 1983 with the first 20+ rushing touchdowns season, which can be seen in the table itself. Additionally, I thought it might be relevant to share the stat leaders the same year, just in case someone else had beat him to 20 TDs that year, which no one did (Eric Dickerson was second with 18 TDs). While I could have left that statement without a reference, I did think it was better to include that reference as opposed to just letting people look at the table.
I hope I've addressed all your concerns. If not, I'm more than happy to make further changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hey man im josh, the Wayback Machine page linked at ref 3 is still broken. I mean this in that I see the page's header and border, and tehn along the border, the tab titled "The Run" is selected. But, no content is displaying below it. Everything else looks good, great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: I see now. I believe I've resolved the issue by pointing to a slightly different target which contained the relevant information. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nebula Award for Best Game Writing

Nominator(s): PresN 00:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The next animal list is taking some time to sort out, so lets check out something different! Way back in 2012, I took the then-five categories of the Nebula Awards through FLC, following the 15+ lists on scifi/fantasy awards I'd already done. At the time, I thought I was done, but in 2019 the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America added a category for "game writing". I let it sit and grow for a while, adding the Ray Bradbury Award in 2020 when they retroactively made it official, but at this point it's been around long enough to be counted alongside the 50-year-old+ categories that already have FLs. It's still a bit of an odd duck—the Nebulas are mostly followed by book-readers, so with this list sitting in the intersection of SFF writing and video games it doesn't get much mainstream press on its own. It gets to tag along with the other categories, however, so here we are. This list follows the same conventions as the other seven Nebula lists, as well as the other 30+ SFF award FLs I've done, so hopefully everything is ship-shape. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "is one of the Nebula Awards [....] defined as "an interactive or playable story-driven work which conveys narrative, character, or story background"" - as it currently reads it says the award is defined as an interactive etc etc, whereas in fact it is awarded for something defined thus
  • "The first year was won by" - he didn't literally win the year. Maybe "The first year's award was won by".....? (and similar for the rest of that paragraph)
  • That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 05:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hope it's okay if I step in and try to help. I'm not particularly the best in proses so please let me know if I made a wrong comment. Note that I tend to enjoy shortening stuff, hope you won't find this frequency being annoying. GeraldWL 08:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's a country parameter in the infobox.
  • "A game, for the purpose of the category"-- this kinda implies that the definition of "game" by the SFWA vary by awards, however this is the only game award in Nebula. I think "for the purpose of the category" can be removed and still present the same message, shorter and clearer.
  • There's a duplicate Nebula link
  • The first paragraph is kinda zig-zagging through various topics when I tried reading it. It starts off well, defining the awards and SFWA's criteria, but then overviews the overall Nebula awards and then to the game awards? I think it can be reordered, so it first talks about "The Nebula Awards have been described as" and so on, and then the SFWA's criteria. I did this with the Academy for Foreign in Latvia listicle: it provides an overview, and delves into the specifics.
  • "The Nebula Award for Best Game Writing has been awarded annually since 2019." This can be blended to the first sentence as "The Nebula Award for Best Game Writing is one of the Nebula Awards, presented each year since 2019 by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association (SFWA) for science fiction or fantasy game writing."
  • "though the authors of the nominees"-- arent the authors the nominees? Could be "the nominated authors" if that's the case
  • "when the game was first published" --> "the game's release"
  • The rest looks great to me! Just wondering though, do you consider a date format consistency here, since the refs are in YMD format, also perhaps a language consistency.
  • Alsoooo, Techrepublic has a publisher, TechnologyAdvice.
Hey, sorry for the delay in response! I made a draft of what I think would improve the first paragraph at User:Gerald Waldo Luis/sandbox. But the other stuff looks fine to me already. If the lead concerns is addressed then I'll give a support. Sorry if I seem (or am being) nitpicky. GeraldWL 03:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Okay, integrated that ordering. --PresN 15:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Aight, I don't think there's anything else in my concerns, it looks very much ready for FL now, so I'm supporting! (also I have a peer review up if you're not so busy and interested to check out). GeraldWL 05:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments and source review from MyCatIsAChonk

No spotcheck necessarry. Since there's so few sources, it won't take too long, so why not a regular review as well. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Interactive fiction developer Choice of Games has had the most games nominated with six over four years. - just to clarify this, I think "a total of" should be added before "six over four years"; otherwise, seeing these dates next to each other is a bit confusing
  • Why does "No award" exist in the key if it's not present in the table? Is there even a possibility of there being no award?
  • All refs must use same casing (title case or sentence case); the former looks more professional, and right now the refs section uses a mix. Since most already use sentence case (albeit the titles with proper nouns) just downsizing ref 3 to "Nebula rules" would do the trick
  • Ref 2 is dead

PresN, that's all I got, very nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: All done, though as an aside, in 15 years here I've never heard of the idea that references need to have consistent title vs sentence casing, as opposed to mirroring the style of the cited source. --PresN 15:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - the casing rule was something I learned from other FACs and FLCs. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey man im josh

Support: Not finding any issues (did a reference check and general check). Good job! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Houston Texans seasons

Nominator(s): ULPS (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my second National Football League FLC. This list documents the 21 seasons played by the Houston Texans in the NFL. Thanks in advance to everyone who provides their feedback :) ULPS (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • I would lose the rather meta "The list documents the season-by-season records of the Houston Texans' franchise from 2002 to present, including postseason records, and league awards for individual players or head coaches." It's fairly obvious that an article entitled "List of Houston Texans seasons" would document "the season-by-season records of the Houston Texans' franchise" so there's no need to state it in prose.
  • Merge the second, very short, paragraph with the first
  • Both keys show multiple items not actually used in the table - there's no need for this, especially the massive awards key, seven of the entries in which aren't needed
  • Conversely, "WPMOY" is in the table but not in the key
  • O'Brien image caption needs a full stop
  • In the same caption, the words "in the NFL" aren't needed, as where else would he have coached them?
  • You are inconsistent in the table with regards to re-linking names used multiple times. The coaches whose names appear twice are only linked on the first usage, yet JJ Watts is linked four times. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe I addressed all of your comments. For the "key" section referring to playoff success (super bowl wins, conference wins, etc.) I think it's worth keeping for the sake of parity with the other List of seasons FLs, as well as on the unlikely chance that the Texans actually become good. Plus, it is pretty small compared to that awards key lol, which I have shrunk to the only 3 awards actually mentioned. ULPS (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verification check by MrLinkinPark333

  • Not cited in 2016 Houston Chronicle source:
    • The team was owned by Bob McNair until his death in 2018," - bolded part only
    • "following McNair's death, the majority ownership of the team went to his wife, Janice."
    • "The Texans are the youngest franchise currently competing in the NFL"
  • Pro-Football-Reference:
    • Texans were 3rd in 2017, not 4th
    • 2017 Awards Voting doesn't have Walter Payton Man of the Year for Watt. The source can be swapped out with this Pro-Football-Reference source.
  • Not cited by Sporting News
    • "They are the only franchise to have never won a road playoff game"
    • "the only one to have never appeared in a conference championship game."
    • "and division rival Jacksonville Jaguars." - Sporting News doesn't specify the Jaguars are the rivals to the Texans.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added sources for all and just removed the division rival bit, it was kinda crufty anyway. ULPS (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost all set. 2 points left. 1) Dawson 2019 only mentions Janice McClain as the owner, so majority isn't needed. 2) McClain 2016 no longer needed as NFL citation verifies the youngest team sentence. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, all done now :) ULPS (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Hey man im josh

This is my first FLC review, so I'm sorry if I've missed anything. The list appears to meet all of the featured list critera, having an appropriate style, structure, prose, and lead while comprehensively covering the defined scope. Knit picks:

  • J. J. Watt has won three DPOY awards and one WPMOY award while playing for the Texans – I think this caption under the J. J. Watt picture reads better if you remove the word "has".
  • Bill O'Brien served as the head coach of the Houston Texans from 2014 to 2020... – I would lose "of the Houston Texans" from this caption.
  • Is there a reason you chose not to include a win percentage column, similar to the ones at List of Chicago Bears seasons and List of Detroit Lions seasons? The inclusion of such a column is inconsistent across pages in Category:National Football League teams seasons, but I thought I'd ask about it.

I'm not finding much to critique with this list. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made the first two changes. I think the win percentage column isn't needed. Most of the season FLs don't have it, and it's not needed for understanding as the number of games played has stayed mostly the same. Plus, it would make that huge table even huger. Basically, some downsides with almost no gain. Hope that makes sense. ULPS (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Hey man im josh (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Finish becomes !scope=col | Finish. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. You have this on most of them, but are missing "Regular season" and the 3 below it.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. !{{nfly|2002}} becomes !scope=row | {{nfly|2002}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PresN: Honestly kinda embarassed I missed that, but I believe I have gotten to fixing all of those issues :) ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review

As this page is currently listed with a source reviewed needed, I thought I'd look it over.

  • Link checker shows no issues
  • References are all reliable for the information being reported
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher/website formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable

Source review passed. I already supported above, but I support still / harder now. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
  • Hate to say it, but why are super bowl wins, conference wins, and wild card berths listed in the key if they're not present in the table?

Support - my comment is really just a minor detail, I see no other issues- great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could remove them I guess, but as I mentioned earlier it is a small key and it helps for parity with every other FL related to NFL seasons. The Texans are uniquely bad in this regard I suppose, usually teams have a little more to show than divisional championships. ULPS (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Image review – All photos used in the article have appropriate free licenses and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outline of lichens

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm testing the waters a bit, because regulars here tell me that no outline has yet reached FL status. I'm hoping to change that, and to get the first featured list for our relatively new lichen task force. As well as informing our readers, this outline is helping us to figure out what articles we still need to create. It's all referenced, but I am wondering whether the lead should be in outline form (as suggested in the outline documentation) or a full lead (as suggested by the FL criteria). Open to suggestions, and looking forward to hearing what others think. MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AK
  • Alright, not really sure how to review an outline, but I'll have a stab at this.
  • This looks pretty comprehensive and doesn't really have much prose to review, so pretty close to a support; my only comments are that the images all need alt text and that the spot test image could use the more descriptive caption present at the article to better contextualize what's going on. AryKun (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks AryKun! I'll get those sorted ASAP. MeegsC (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of songs recorded by Basshunter

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of songs recorded by Swedish musician Basshunter. The last song "Ingen kan slå (Boten Anna)" was released on 23 June 2023. He has recorded a lot of unreleased tracks like "Livets fard", "Horn of Orcs", "Ni är det bästa som finns" or "The Indian" but they never were mentioned in any publication so I had to omitted them. It previously passed GOCE and was peer-reviewed. Structure is after similar featured lists. Eurohunter (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

Surprised to see no comments after three weeks on the market- happy to review. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • He published his music mainly through the internet. - rather vague, to what sites? BandCamp? YouTube?
    •  Comment: Unfortunately there is no source mention certain websites but I added "for free download on platforms such as chat channels and gaming websites.". Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's better. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Every time a year is used as a dependent clause (e.g. "In 2008...") it needs to be followed by a comma. Right now, only some instances have commas.
  • Same thing for "According to ____...", anytime a clause like that is stated it must be followed by a comma
    •  Done. I added commas but I'm not sure of first case - "According to Swedish magazine Filter, in 2004, Basshunter had already composed up to 300 songs." - not too many commas? Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's just fine. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • His album, The Old Shit, and The Bassmachine were... - is that not two albums being listed? If not, clarify
    •  Comment: What do you mean by "being listed"? The Bassmachine is a studio album and The Old Shit is a compilation album. Both albums were released at the time in 2006 on Basshunter website. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now I understand, my confusion was between the difference of the two. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but the article for LOL says it was his second studio album, while this article says it was his first- same numbering issue with Now You're Gone
    •  Done. Yes. LOL is the second studio album and Now You're Gone – The Album is the third studio album. I don't know what happened, but I fixed it. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Writer" cell for "Al final" needs a cross
  • Songs that start with "the" should be sorted by the word after it (e.g. "The Basshunter" should be sorted as "Basshunter, The")
  • Footnote "as" has a typo, should read, "Originally released as single, "Welcome to Rainbow" was released on later release of Now You're Gone – The Album.[9]"
    •  Comment: Do you mean just missing comma? I added it. Should I also add comma to note i and t? Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ironically, I think I made a typo in my own comment. Disregard this comment. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:James Lord Pierpont.jpg - source link is dead and it needs an international PD tag
    @Eurohunter, firstly, yes, the archive url needs to be added to be description. Secondly, the tag under "Licensing" only covers its PD status internationally (I got it backwards in the comment, my apologies). It need another tag to cover its status in the US. PD-old-expired should be right. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment: @MyCatIsAChonk: I added link to archived version. Why it need another tag to cover its status in the United Status? What about Mexico and the other countries? Template PD-old-expired for the United States mention United States Copyright Office, but I don't know if it's registered there. Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Eurohunter, Wikimedia servers are in the US, so they must comply with US copyright law. But, because media on Commons are used across all Wikipedias, media must also be available internationally. Now, I realized an error on my part- how can it be PD in countries with a 70+ author death copyright term if the author is unknown? My bad- PD-anon-expired should be right because it states that it was published before 1928 (making it public domain in the US) and that it was published over 95 years ago (making it public domain in most countries). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done @MyCatIsAChonk: I changed template PD-old to PD-anon-expired. Eurohunter (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eurohunter, that's all from me, good work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Summary: @MyCatIsAChonk: Your comments have been noted and issues has been taken into account. Some issues require further comments from you. 👍 Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See responses above- only one requires further action. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support- very nice work, all my points have been addressed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from ULPS

Not too many, (MyCatIsAChonk commented on most of my concerns) but I'll add to them if I see anything else. ULPS (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • His album, The Old Shit, and The Bassmachine were released on his website in 2006.. You already mentioned The Bassmachine being released in 2004, as well as his music being released through the internet, what is special about this release that you stated it again? Did it come out for free? Probably clarify.
    •  Comment: Yes, I added it because actually both albums were released on the same time on Basshunter website, so I think just to mention The Old Shit would be not enough or out of context. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I still think it's a bit weird to mention again, perhaps say The Old Shit and The Bassmachine were made available to purchase through his website in 2006? ULPS (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Comment: Yes, they both were released in 2006 on Basshunter website, but only The Old Shit was actually premiered and The Bassmachine was released already earlier in 2004. Eurohunter (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Then that is fine I guess, no way to really write that without being too clunky. ULPS (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Done Eurohunter (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The album consisted of seven songs from two previous Basshunter albums, The Old Shit, and all 10 songs from The Bassmachine. I am not quite sure what this is saying, is it 7 songs total from two previous albums, something from The Old Shit and all of The Bassmachine? Why is the number of tracks from The Old Shit not mentioned? The sentence should be reworded for clarity.
    •  Done. I don't know why, but it was kinda unclear. I changed it to "The album mostly consisted of songs from two previous Basshunter albums, 7 songs from The Old Shit, and all 10 songs from The Bassmachine." Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The grammar in footnote "b" is a bit off, I believe the meaning is something along the lines of "According to the ACE Repertory, the song "Utan stjärnorna" was co-written by Basshunter and Ali Payami. However, in the 2006 release of Basshunter's "LOL" album, the song, translated as "Without Stars," is credited solely to Basshunter as both the writer and producer.
    •  Comment: It's good idea, but I wanted to mention that LOL had different versions released in different time, and it was just one of the versions. So I would like to use your idea but there need to be mention that it is not the original/first/premier version of LOL - I don't know how to mention it. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I think the way I stated it works (2006 release implies there was another release IMO), but you could say "second release" (or whatever number release it was). You could also say the "2006 re-release" ULPS (talk • contribs) 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Comment: @ULPS: There is a lot of physical and digital versions - exact release dates are not known for some versions, so then it would be very hard to count if it's 6th or 7th version etc. Eurohunter (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      So why not say the 2006 re-release? ULPS (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Comment: @ULPS: Hard to say. For example, if someone released an album in the United Kingdom on CD then two weeks later the same or other version would be released in Sweden - would we call it a re-release? Eurohunter (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Eurohunter: Yeah I guess not. I think the grammar can still be cleaned up from Later 2006 release of LOL album at "Without Stars" it indicates that Basshunter solely written and produced song to On the later 2006 release of LOL at "Without Stars" it indicates that Basshunter solely wrote and produced the song. This doesn't change the meaning, just the grammar. I made this change myself, feel free to revert if you think of something better :) ULPS (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @ULPS:  Comment: I think it's better and I will fix the other cases in the same way. Eurohunter (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Great! ULPS (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Done Eurohunter (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all from me, nice job! ULPS (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Summary: @ULPS: Your comments have been noted and issues has been taken into account. Some issues require further comments from you. 👍 Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from A Thousand Doors

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good overall. These are my edits, please revert if you don't agree with them.
  • "A cover for "Angel in the Night"." Does "cover" here mean the single's cover art?
    •  Done. It was messed during copy edit. It was supposed to mean single, so I chanted it to "A single "Angel in the Night", and cover of "I Miss You" by Westlife were later released.". Eurohunter (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "7 songs" -> "seven songs", per MOS:SPELL09.
  • All songs beginning with "The" (including "The Indian") needs to sort under their second word.
  • Per WP:GALLERY, image galleries like the one in this article generally shouldn't be added. If there's no space to add the images next to the table, as in similar lists, then I'd suggest just removing them altogether.
    •  Comment: Before images were on the right but someone moved them to gallery due to some problem on small screen or mobile version. I would add them on the right again or remove them. Do you have the other idea? Eurohunter (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Citation 31 is a dead link.

My current open FLC is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of Brexit/archive1. If you have any time, I'd welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Summary: @A Thousand Doors: Your comments have been noted and issues has been taken into account. Some issues require further comments from you. 👍 Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: What do you think? Eurohunter (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for not responding to this sooner. I have made some further edits here. Please revert if you don't agree with them.

  • The article says that The Bassmachine was released in 2004, but then also says that it was released in 2006. I'm a bit confused by this – was it re-released in 2006, or did Basshunter make it available for free on his website, or something else?
    •  Comment: The Bassmachine was released in 2004 but in 2006 album was released on Basshunter website together with new compilation album The Old Shit. Eurohunter (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe you want to use a verb other than "released", then? How about "were made available to buy on his website", or something similar? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Similarly, "Ingen kan slå (Boten Anna)" needs to be below "In Her Eyes" when the table loads.
    •  Done It's a good question. Should I ignore hyphens, apostrophes, periods, commas and also spaces? I did it right now. Eurohunter (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't ignore spaces, no. Ideally, when the table first loads, it should match how the table looks when you sort by title. At the moment, if you sort by title, "Bass Worker" jumps above "The Bassmachine", "Här kommer Lennart" jumps above "Hardstyle Drops", "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" jumps above "Vifta med händerna", and "Fest i hela huse" jumps above "Festfolk" [2006 Remix]. Speaking of which... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If LOL was his second studio album, then what was The Old Shit? Was that compilation album?
  • A compilation of what, exactly? Songs that weren't on The Bassmachine? B-sides? Remixes that he's done? Something else? The lead would benefit from explaining this. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment: Strictly it "consists of songs from two previous Basshunter albums, seven songs from The Old Shit, and all ten songs from The Bassmachine. "Go Down Now" from single "Angel in the Night" and a promotional single "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass" and four unreleased songs.". I think the second sentence not fit well but I don't have idea how to connect it in better way with the first sentence. Eurohunter (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It sounds like you're describing The Early Bedroom Sessions there, but I asked about The Old Shit. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: Oh you mean what is on compilation album The Old Shit. It consists of unreleased tracks. Eurohunter (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Was "Festfolk" [2006 Remix] a new recording, or just a remix of the original "Festfolk"? If it was just a remix, should it be included in this list, since it isn't technically a song recorded by Basshunter? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment: Hard to say. It's described just as "[2006 Remix]". If you look at 2006 "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" and 2007 "DotA" - they could describe it also as "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA [2007 Remix]". Instead of it they relead new version as "DotA" in 2007. In the same way there are 2008 "I Can Walk on Water" and 2009 "Walk on Water" instead of "I Can Walk on Water [2009 Remix]". Eurohunter (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've just listened to both tracks, and they sound pretty much the same. It doesn't sound like Basshunter has recorded anything new for the 2006 remix, so personally I think it can be removed, since you don't list any other remixes, but I'll leave that with you to decide. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The final sentence in the thrid paragraph is a sentence fragment. What are you trying to say there? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment: As above. It is related to compilation album The Early Bedroom Sessions. Eurohunter (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's still an incomplete sentence though, which needs to be addressed. It might be best just to remove it entirely. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The prose in the fourth paragraph could be improved. At the moment it's just a collection of sentences about the singles from Calling Time, and it just doesn't flow together very well. There's one sentence on "Saturday", then one sentence on "Fest i hela huset", then one sentence on "Northern Light", etc. I don't think you need to go into this granular detail by listing every single from the album. I'm happy to work with you on rewriting this, if you'd like. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: If you have any better idea for it, let me know. Eurohunter (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment

  • If you sort the table by a column such as year, and then re-sort the "title" column, all the songs starting with "The" now appear under T. This is wrong, they should appear under the first letter of their second word (as they do when you initially arrive on the article) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of Brexit

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(This is my first FL nomination in over four years, so I hope the process hasn't changed that much since then...) I've been working on this list for a few months now, and, following a peer review from User:Llewee, I now feel that it is worthy of the bronze star. The structure of the article is largely based on Timeline of the Manhattan Project, currently a FL. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

  • Spell out United Kingdom and European Union at their first occurrence (and probably link them as well)
  • "Prime Minister" should be / should not be capitalized in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLE
    • Same for "Leader of the Opposition", "Chief Negotiator"
      • Got them all (I think). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "post-war" – not a fan of this term since it's unclear which war it refers to
    • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the 'long campaign'" – capitalize "The"
    • Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and will now be placed" – don't use future tense (comes off as awkward for an article set in the past)
    • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Royal Assent" – use lowercase (occurs several times)
    • Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "will now take place" – don't use future tense
    • Rewriten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the value of pound sterling" → "the value of the pound sterling"
    • Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "that will give Theresa May" – use last name only and don't use future tense
    • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The day that the Article 50 period ..." – sentence fragment
    • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "will now be selected" – don't use future tense
    • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall, this is pretty solid – sources seem good (though this isn't a formal source review) and most of it is well-written. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the review, RunningTiger123! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only major issue is the capitalization of "Prime Minister" in a few captions. I also disagree that EU and UK should be abbreviated in the lead – since both are key to this article, it's especially important to ensure readers know what they are – but if the MOS disagrees, so be it. I'll trust that the edits get made and support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now done. Thanks for the support, RunningTiger! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Nominator(s): TheUzbek (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Vietnamese politics is exciting! Hopefully, you find this list as exciting as I do. This list is modelled on my former FL nominee 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

I know that communist politics, and Vietnamese politics more generally, is not the sexiest topic in the world, but I hope some of you will take your time to review it. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the sources, are the alternates actually notable as a whole? This isn't a big table, why can't it just be merged with Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam? The External link lists both together and another is called "Portraits of 200 members of the XII Party Central Committee", and 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam has both full members and alternates listed together so I don't think this needs its own article or passes criterion 3c. Reywas92Talk 13:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is plenty of coverage of only the alternates, interviews with the alternates and articles on their training. Moreover, I took the decision to make them separate lists based on page constraint. Alternates are future leaders, or at least the Party's attempt to create future leaders of the Party and state. CC members are a whole different category and are elected based on representing of provinces, government ministries, and party positions, et cetera. More rules in this area also mean more information and less space to write it on (regarding the members of the 12th CC).
I could, of course, have nominated "Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam" first, but I am already confident that that list will have as much text as the 12th Politburo based on already gathered material.
I am, therefore, very confident in my decision. But to prove you wrong I will begin writing the text for the "Members of the 12th CC" now during this nomination process to prove my point. TheUzbek (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See changes Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Still more changes ahead and I will expand the lead further (but not by adding new paragraphs). My point? It's good to have two separate lists. TheUzbek (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, you never followed up your comment... TheUzbek (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I wasn't watching this page. You've improved the main list quite nicely, but I still don't see why the 1.5 paragraphs in the lead that are about the alternates and the small list of 20 people can't be included in the main list as well. Reywas92Talk 04:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lead in a list can only be four paragraphs: the lead of the 12th members has already maxed out. I've increased the lead of the alternates again. Now its three paragraphs.
Its very simple: alternates and members do not hold the same posts and have different powers and different responsibilities.
Can you support the list as is now? TheUzbek (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You move prose out of the lead into a section – there's no restriction that the body many only be the table(s) itself. My other comments would be that simply saying "Undergraduate" or "Graduate" is not very meaningful so this column seems unnecessary, and you don't need background colors for females. Reywas92Talk 20:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had to take a psychological break from this discussion.
The problem with discussing with you is that you've completely failed to answer why two different subjects should be on the same list. I've asked you, and you've failed completely to answer it. It is annoying so the least.
Why would I merge these two articles when they are two different topics? Why?
Graduate and undergraduate are the terms that the Party itself uses, and they seem to think it is relevant. Why shouldn't be?
Background colour for females; it was done on the 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be done here. TheUzbek (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14

This will be a review of prose and structure alone. Also going to wait for Reywas weigh in on TheUzbek's response re criterion 3c concern.

  • Be consistent with use or non-use of serial comma(s). i.e. usage in Party's Political Platform, Charter, and resolutions, while in other instances you don't.
    • Done
  • cadres could use a wikilink if available for better context, for those of us who are unfamiliar
    • Done
  • meet "basically" the same standards -- better off without "basically" as what is conveyed in this sentence doesn't change that it is a standard requirement
    • Done
  • I would avoid using transition words consecutively in each sentences. i.e. In addition, Moreover, Therefore. Perhaps only use it sparingly as most of these can be conveyed without them.
    • Done
  • At last -- finally or lastly is much more appropriate IMO.
    • Done
  • In the table -- since the abbreviation is Ref, the full form should be Reference, since you only use on citation for each.
    • Done
  • That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pseud 14: Thanks for reviewing the list! --TheUzbek (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NØ

  • Are words like "Moreover", "Therefore" and "Lastly" required to start the sentences they are used in in the lead? I have been advised against this sometimes in the past.
Great list. I urgently need some help with one of mine if you have some time. Regards.--NØ 12:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan: Done, removed "Therefore" and "moreover". I kept "lastly." I can review you're FL nom after you've finished reviewing this one. --TheUzbek (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was the only comment, actually. Great work.--NØ 14:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but you do support its FL nom? TheUzbek (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source review

No spotcheck needed, focusing on formatting/reliability. Just a note that I can't read Vietnamese, so I won't be able to check for typos in titles. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't see why Vuving 2017 has to be in a bibliography. Since there's only one sfn to it, I think it's easier to just use it as a reference and put the page number in the page= parameter
  • Unrelated, but add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate
  • Most of the links are marked as dead, so the archived url is displaying in the title. This should not be the case- but "live" in the url-status= parameter
  • Unrelated, but why are the female cells under "Gender" marked pink and the male cells aren't marked at all? Or, really, why is gender relevant to this list?

TheUzbek, all done! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done on all points. Gender is relevant since a) Vietnamese politicians and official media highlight their gender b) gender inequality, and c) representation of sexes in political institutions is often the talk of politics, and that is the case in Vietnam as well, where the Party is striving to reach two-thirds women in leadership position within the next twenty years (if I remember correctly).
Thanks for reviewing the list :) TheUzbek (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - great job, I understand why that's relevant, thanks for clarifying! By the way, if you have time, I'd appreciate any comments at this FLC! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much; I will review you're list! TheUzbek (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

United States presidential elections in Connecticut

Nominator(s): 金色黎明 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have rewrited all of list, and added a lot of content following the format of other Featured Lists 金色黎明 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the default width of the new Vector skin, the side bars can't be next to the three columns of "Key for parties". This results in a lot of whitespace (and also columns that are wider than my screen). Not sure how to fix it, but would be nice to have less whitespace:) Dajasj (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. The sidebar is unnecessary, I have delete it. 金色黎明 (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

  • For citations, use the date format common in the United States per MOS:DATETIES: for instance, "June 28, 2023" instead of "28 June 2023".
  • "since American Revolution" → "since the American Revolution"
  • "Since 1988" – Connecticut voted for Bush in 1988, so it should be "Since 1992"
    • Also, you shift from discussing the Federalist Party to the elections in the last 30 years, and you seem to imply that there was a single shift that occurred, skipping over 150 years of history and several key shifts in between.
  • "for the Democratic candidates who are liberalism" – doesn't make sense
  • "1788-89" → "1788–89" (use en dash instead of hyphen; occurs once in footnote and once in section heading)
  • "Federalist party" → "Federalist Party"
  • "As a part of ... from 1796 to 1816." – this sentence is a comma splice
  • "And before 1820..." – don't start a sentence with "And"
  • "However, Connecticut had not voted for the Federalist party since 1820." – misleading: the Federalists essentially collapsed as a party around that time, so of course Connecticut didn't vote for them
  • "Runner-up (nationally)" – shouldn't this just be "Runner-up"? (occurs in two tables)
  • Martin Van Buren should sort by "Van Buren", not "Buren" (occurs three times)
  • In 1976, Ford's vote total needs a comma

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your advice, I have corrected all of them and expand the content about its political evolution. 金色黎明 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments:

  • Two dates still need to be fixed (in refs. 6 and 7)
  • "connecticut was lean to the anti-Jackson candidates" → "Connecticut leaned towards the anti-Jackson candidates"
  • Capitalize "Civil War"
  • "was the stronghold of Republican" → "was a Republican stronghold"
  • Don't use "'s" after "Connecticut Republican Party"
  • "Except Eisenhower and Reagan obtained landslide victory across the country in 1956 and 1984 respectively." – poor grammar, but it's probably better to remove the line entirely instead of fixing it
  • "in presidential election from 1796 to 1816" → "in presidential elections from 1796 to 1816"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanksfor your advice, I've correct all of them 金色黎明 (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "As part of the Thirteen Colonies, Connecticut has participated" => "One of the original Thirteen Colonies, Connecticut has participated"
  • "Since the Civil War, Connecticut was" => "Following the Civil War, Connecticut was"
  • "until it was dominated by Republicans after 1896.[5] From 1896 to 1932, Connecticut was a Republican stronghold" - any way to combine these two bits, which essentially say the same thing?
  • "its advantage was no longer as significant as it was then" => "its advantage was no longer as significant as it had previously been"
  • Notes A and C are not complete sentences so don't need full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your attention and pertinent advice. I've corrected the article according to your suggestion. 金色黎明 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source review from MyCatIsAChonk

No spotcheck needed, will focus on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Unrelated to sourcing, but watch for false titles in the lead- I'm looking at During this period, Connecticut Republican Party leader J. Henry Roraback built up...
  • Replace Britannica sources (refs 1 and 2) with other sources (see WP:BRITANNICA)- there's certainly many American history textbooks that support the first sentence
  • All citations must use the same casing (title case or sentence case) in their titles, per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
  • Ref 3 needs page numbers. To be consistent with other citations, I'd suggest putting the citation under "Works cited" and using sfns (that is, unless both uses of it are on the same page)
  • Refs 30 and 31: quotes in quotes should use apostrophes
  • Either wikilink all publishers/works or wikilink none for consistency
  • Ref 57: I don't think citing 12 pages from a book is verifiable. There's definitely a source somewhere that makes the generalized statement you;re trying to support with all those pages.
  • What is ref 174 supporting? The page just seems to have lots of documents about the 2023 special elections.
  • Under "Works cited": why do the last two sources have LCCN and OL numbers, but the first doesn't?

金色黎明, that's all from me, nice work on. The color usage in the tables is very visually appealing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012 NBA draft

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazertalk 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This list is about the players who were selected in the 2012 NBA draft and the order in which they were selected. I started working on this a month ago to clean the article up, and I hope it's ready to become a featured list now. I used 2003 NBA draft as a guide since not many NBA drafts are currently FLs. -- ZooBlazertalk 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment
Should be able to finish adding refs for the section in the next day or 2. -- ZooBlazertalk 17:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChrisTheDude The section is fully cited now. -- ZooBlazertalk 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! style="width:1%;"| Round becomes !scope=col style="width:1%;"| Round. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |align=center| 1 becomes !scope=row align=center| 1 (Looks like the "pick" column should be the header/primary, as its unique to each row). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the clear directions @PresN. Can you take a look to see if I did it correctly?
    Also, for the !scope=row, do I do it for each individual "pick"? For now I just did it for the first pick just to see if I did it correctly. -- ZooBlazertalk 19:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, each "pick", and you did it correctly. --PresN 20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN I've made the changes to all tables except the draft lottery one because I'm not the best with tables and it's a different style than the others. I'm not sure where to add everything from your suggestions for that one. -- ZooBlazertalk 20:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Did it for you, the table code was all jumbled together so I smoothed it out and added the accessibility bits. --PresN 00:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN Thank you! -- ZooBlazertalk 01:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk
  • the same conference, the Southeastern Conference - "the Southeastern Conference" should be in parenthesis, as the (Kentucky) is in parenthesis too
  • The draft selections and transactions, including trades involving picks on draft night or at a previous time. - this is an incomplete sentence, and I'm not entirely sure what it means
  • The first 14 picks in the draft belong to teams that miss the playoffs; the order was determined through a lottery. The lottery determined the three teams that will obtain the first three picks on the draft. The remaining first-round picks and the second-round picks were assigned to teams in reverse order of their win–loss record in the previous season. - citation needed
  • The Charlotte Bobcats, who had the worst record and the biggest chance to win the lottery, won the second overall pick. - citation needed
  • As of 2011, the basic eligibility rules for the draft are listed below. - bring up to date; if this is talking about the pasty, say "In 2011, the basic..."
  • U.S. players who were at least one year removed from their high school graduation and have played minor-league basketball with a team outside the NBA are also automatically eligible. - cn
  • A player who has hired an agent will forfeit his remaining college eligibility, regardless of whether he is drafted. Also, while the CBA allows a player to withdraw from the draft twice, the NCAA mandates that a player who has declared twice loses his college eligibility. - cn

ZooBlazer, got nothing else, great job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk I think I've addressed everything. Ref #76 should now cover the last 2 CNs you mentioned. -- ZooBlazertalk 14:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coretta Scott King Award

Nominator(s): Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From modest origins as an award co-sponsored by a middle school, the Coretta Scott King Awards are now a major American Children's Literature award honoring African American authors and illustrators. This list continues the work I did with the Caldecott and Newbery Medals towards improving the quality of children's literature award coverage on Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

  • Remove "(Book Awards)" in infobox
  • Don't bold "The" in lead
  • Don't hyphenate "African American" (in other words, don't use "African-American") per MOS:HYPHEN
  • I'm not a fan of the blockquote in the lead – while not a direct violation of MOS:PULLQUOTE, it violates the spirit of that rule to me when placed with the preceding paragraph.
  • "Ms. Greer" – just say Greer
    • Same for "Dr. King", though additional clarification may be needed since two Kings are involved
  • "Early sponsors of the award included the New Jersey Library Association..." – sentence is used twice back-to-back
    That was one of the last changes I made and missed my proofreading. Feel silly about it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Starting in 1978, runner-ups to the Author award have been recognized as Honor Books" – but 1971, 1974, 1976, and 1977 have Honor Books in the table?
    They were called runner-ups those years but retroactively are referred to as Honor Books. I've attempted to clarify. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "2 Coretta Scott King Awards" – spell out "two" per MOS:NUM
  • In the image captions, Bud, not Buddy should be italicized
  • Images need alt text
  • If ref. 13 sources the entire table, the access date should follow the most recent awards
  • In 2009, The Blacker the Berry should be italicized
    • Same in 2010 for The Negro Speaks of Rivers and in 2021 for Exquisite
  • In 2023, Washington's cell should be colored
  • In 2023, The Talk should sort by "Talk"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FOARP

  • General comment: The topic here is essentially the award. The ALA gives the award, so whilst sources published by them are likely reliable, they are not independent. Libraries Unlimited appears to have been an imprint specifically for teachers (i.e., narrow-interest media). GBN appears to be something that was founded via Facebook. Fuse8 is (or was) a blog. The annotated bibliography is someone's thesis. I was rather hoping for more sourcing independent of the ALA, and not simply narrow-interest imprints/blogs/interviews (etc.) to establish the notability of this topic, bearing in mind that notability is not inherited. For example, well-established news sources covering who receives the awards. FOARP (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS - maybe this Britannica Almanac piece could help? I don't know if this is of the same stature as the encyclopaedia. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlike the last two lists I did, a lot of the content that was here before remains and I found very little new information to add to it. I share your concerns about the master's thesis but the information that I could check against other sources all agreed (and at least in one ALA publication sourced back to the thesis). So for me it was a question of whether to include such information at all. You also seem to have notability concerns. The annual announcements receive widespread media attention. For instance here is the Christian Science Monitor covering it in 1990 and here is it covering it this year. Examples of coverage from this year include USA Today, St Louis Post Dispatch, and Washington Post. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Barkeep49 - thanks for responding, is there anything relevant in those references describing the award that could be added in just so we don't have something entirely referenced to ALA/blogs/thesis/interviews/narrow-interest media? The CSM coverage looks good. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="5%" |Year becomes !scope=col width="5%" |Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! 1970 becomes !scope=row style="color:white;" | 1970. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Note that right now you have both the year and work columns as the "primary" column/header; you should pick one and make the other a "regular" cell (with | instead of !).
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN: I've implemented column and row scopes for the main table and key. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review from MyCatIsAChonk

No spotcheck needed; focusing on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • All ISBNs should use version 13 and have proper hyphenation- here's a great tool for converting improper ISBNs
  • What's the point of the quote in ref 1?
  • Abbreviations as citation publishers.works should be consistent (e.g. either use "ALA" or "American Library Association" for all)
  • Ref 5 redirects to the award's page. What is this verifying?
  • Ref 7: make "interviews" lowercase, per MOS:ALLCAPS- also, needs author
  • Ref 12: Make "School Library Journal" the publisher and leave the work as is
  • Unrelated, but there's a pretty high Earwig score on one of the sources. This needs to be cut down.
  • What makes the following sources reliable:
    • The Open Book Blog
    • Good Black News

Barkeep49, that's all I got, nice work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that the references have now all been cleaned up. I cannot answer the questions about why certain sources are valuable and the point of the quote in ref 1. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hey man im josh, I will need proof that the two sources are reliable. I've cut the quote from ref 1. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vat

Been considering getting into FLC, and this list is in very good shape.

  • 1993 picture of Scott King -- any reason for this phrasing rather than e.g. "Scott King in 1993"?
  • and in 1981 the illustrator award was also renamed -- the lead clarifies this as "runner-ups renamed to honors", but here it's something of a disconnected run-on sentence.
  • The award eventually changed its ALA affiliation from the SRRT to the Ethnic and Multicultural Information Exchange Round Table (EMIERT), which had become a closer match for its activities -- what did this mean for the organization in practical terms, for readers not very familiar with the internal workings of the ALA? (When was 'eventually'?)

That's all I have -- this is excellent work, and I hope it doesn't need to wait too much longer for FL. Vaticidalprophet 20:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for removal

List of Gunsmoke (TV series) episodes

Notified: Jimknut (FL nom)

I am nominating this for featured list removal because, since its promotion in 2010, it has become an utter mess of an article. A boatload of needless trivia has been added, plot summaries of questionable copyright, and it has become needlessly long (as of this posting it's the 8th largest article and will probably break top five by the time this is closed, which is not a compliment). Wizardman 18:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I first put this article together, it was a listing of just the episode titles. it was in that form that it was promoted to featured article. The plot summaries have been added by someone else. Since Gunsmoke is a famous television series I think it should remain a featured list, but not in its present form. My suggestion is to create lists for each season. That way, this list could potentially be returned to its original form. Does that sound like a good idea? Jimknutt (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be totally fine with a return to the 2010 version personally, though I imagine that'll be easier said than done. Wizardman 20:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even very tiny improvements I'm making are being reverted so yeah delist is unfortunately the only option right now. Wizardman 23:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you pick a version that you could roll back to that would avoid FL delisting, I'd support that as a stopgap to working on what Jimknutt suggested. I'm not sure 2010 would be the ideal as it's wikitable markup rather than the episode list template. We didn't have the episode list template back then, I don't think. But I have a python script that can convert the markup later to get it back to episode list. I'd rather see a drastic rollback as an alternative to delisting. Jim's also correct that the preferred solution for long episode list articles is to split to season articles while maintaining a more general series list (i.e. no plot summaries) per MOS:TVSPLIT. There is a way to transclude individual season article lists without the plot summaries using {{Episode list/sublist}}. But we don't have to do that first - you could roll the article back to a preferred state and we could work on season articles later. Just spitballing a bunch of thoughts there - ultimately, I'd support rolling back to whatever state you believe avoids delisting, and we can pick up the other pieces later. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, just started on article splitting. There evidently are season articles already in existence that were changed to redirects. I have started season 1 as an example of the way it is supposed to be done per MOS:TV (a good working example is Justified (TV series), see Justified (season 1) and List of Justified episodes to see what I mean). Note how when doing it this way, the transclusion of the episode list leaves off the episode summary. @Wizardman: I'm not sure how long redoing these individual seasons may take, so if you feel the need to roll back the article to an FL-appropriate state while I'm doing this, that's fine - just let me know (although I guess it will be obvious), and I'll just use page history to grab some of the other stuff if it is needed. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose While the state of the list as of the nom is questionable, I don't think it warrants delisting as the issues can be quickly resolved (and hopefully, by the time this is ready to close, I will have gotten through most/all of the seasons to resolve). The subject content certainly warrants remaining a featured list, and the proposed remediation above should resolve the primary issues (which I would identify as essentially FLCR#5. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just an update to this: The article has been essentially restored to the state it was when originally FL listed - no episode summaries and all home media tables removed. I have removed the {{very long}} tag from the article as I believe that issue is now resolved. @Wizardman: If you could take a look at how it stands now and comment on the talk page (or here, or my TP), I'd welcome the feedback. I have also reached out to the user reverting the trivia to explain that what was being added there was not appropriate content per MOS:TV and I believe that will resolve any issues that might be considered page instability. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award

Notified: Rambo's Revenge (FL nominator, inactive), WP BBC, WP Sports, WP Awards, WP UK

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the article text has not been significantly updated in 15 years. The text content is woefully insufficient for a featured list, and large swathes of it are either unsourced, or sourced to old sources that should be updated. In particular, the issues I have found are as follows:

  1. The criteria for entry/winning has a source from 2008: [1] Is this still the criteria, and if so, can a newer source be used to confirm this?
  2. The award has been presented to a football manager on ten occasions. It has been awarded to nine Britons, and eleven of the other fourteen winners were European. All unsourced
  3. Daniel Anderson, the only winner from the Southern Hemisphere, was in his native Australia at the time of the awards, so the then St. Helens captain, Paul Sculthorpe, collected it on his behalf This is sourced only to a video of the event, which doesn't appear to work either.
  4. The text fails to account for how it's counting when multiple people won an award e.g. in 2017

Other issue relating to table data that I have noticed are:

  1. Tables are using the place where someone is born, not their sporting nationality, in violation of MOS:SPORTFLAG. For example, Dina Asher-Smith, Dave Brailsford and Colin Montgomerie should all have British as their sporting nationality, as Great Britain compete in these sports (athletics, cycling, golf), not constituent nations of the UK
  2. Tables are using the Ulster Banner, some of which are in violation of WP:IRISH FLAGS (as they're referring to people's birth places and not the sports nationality). Some uses such as Michael O'Neill (footballer) are acceptable, as the football team uses this flag, but Stephen Maguire is an athletics coach, and in athletics they compete as GB&NI (and so Northern Ireland flag is being used for his birthplace, in violation of the MOS)
  3. This table lists the total number of awards won by coaches of each nationality based on the principle of jus soli. This just causes the birthplace/sports nationalities issues highlighted above again

All in all, the text for this is woefully short and unsourced, and so this is not an FL-level article, and needs significant work to attain that level. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]