Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
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 Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects – |
Featured list tools: | ||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
|
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:
The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: |
Nominations
Rita Ora discography
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and is well written as well as reliable. I'm looking forward to the comments. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1956
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, here's the 15th in my series of nominations of number one lists from Billboard's R&B charts. In this particular year, a young up-and-comer called Elvis something-or-other had his first R&B chart-topper. I wonder whatever became of him.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
List of FIFA World Cup winning managers
Done a bit of work on this, taking into consideration the last failed nom, and now think it's ready for another go. With the World Cup in a couple of months, would be nice to get this one over the line by then. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- Wikilink the teams in the first paragraph (but not on subsequent mentions in the lead)
- Wikilink the term manager
- Wikilink Bilardo in the lead
- "Helmut Schön, who led West Germany" - he's already been mentioned, so just use surname this time
- 1974 FIFA World Cup is overlinked
- "Mario Zagallo and César Luis Menotti were also in their 30s" - surname only for Zagallo here and on the next mention
- "Franz Beckenbauer (as a player in 1974, as a manager in 1990)" - surname only here
- There's an error in ref 7
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments @ChrisTheDude:, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Timeline of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson
- Nominator(s): SecretName101 (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets criteria and presents a concise (yet thorough) properly sourced timeline. It outlines an important series of occurrences that comprise the overall effort to impeach Andrew Johnson. This was an important series of events in United States history. The timeline is also well-illustrated with images SecretName101 (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by comments
- A couple of quick comments (will do a full review later.....)
- No article should start "The following is...." - find a way to write a more engaging first sentence
- External links go after references -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Addressed the two issues. SecretName101 (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Further comments
- As far as I can see, Johnson is not linked anywhere in the article
- Nor is impeachment
- Link on the date in the first para is a bit Easter eggy
- "there was a December 7, 1867 in which" - word(s) missing.....?
- Link House of Representatives in the body
- No idea what a "caucus" is so probably link that too
- What does (R– MA) and similar mean?
- "Ashley's resolution to launch an impeachment inquiry run the House Committee on the Judiciary" - this doesn't seem to make sense....?
- "initiating the first impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson" - no need to repeat his entire name
- "to dismiss any executive officer that been appointed" - at least one word missing here
- "to investigate the new charge was that Johnson" - grammar is not right here
- "votes 5–4 vote to recommend" - doesn't read right to me
- That's what I got as far as the end of the Early developments and efforts to impeach Johnson section. Need to pop out now but will try to look at the rest later this evening..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Worked to address these too. SecretName101 (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks
- Nominator(s): Atlantis77177 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is well written with accurate points covering the matter discussed. Every point of record mentioned in the list has citations to back them up. I look forward to the comments to know the reviews. Shout-out to all the great editors who worked on this article before me and have done such a great job on it... Atlantis77177 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "more than any other players" => "more than any other player"
- "with a further 11 players have each scored" => "with a further 11 players having each scored"
- Most of the players who have each scored hat-tricks for two or more different clubs are being mentioned for the first time so should be referred to by their full name (not just surname) and wikilinked
- Same with the players who have scored hat-tricks in two consecutive seasons
- BATE and Mbappe overlinked in lead
- PSG are mentioned four times in the lead without ever being wikilinked
- "in 9 minutes" => "in nine minutes"
- Most of the image captions don't need references as they simply repeat stuff that is sourced in the lead or can be deduced from the table, but "Erling Haaland became the second teenager to score a hat-trick on his Champions League debut." needs a source
- I would add to the key (or just as text above the table) that the "result" column shows the player's team's score first, as this might not be obvious to everyone
- Player column sorts based on the flag/nationality. It should sort based on the player's name, specifically the surname
- Same with the for/against columns - these should sort based on the club name
- Ref column does not need to be sortable
- Result column would look better centred
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I have tried my best to sort all the issues. But i was unable to sort three of them -
- 1) I was unable to center-allign the scores.
- 2) I was unable to change the sorting layout of the table with the name of the player rather than the name of the player's nation.
- 3) I was unable to remove the sort ability of refs section alone.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Atlantis77177: - the ref column seems OK, so I guess you figured that one out. For the scores, you will need to add the centre alignment before the score, so for example this:
- !scope="row"|{{flagicon|NED}} {{sortname|Juul|Ellerman}} |{{fbaicon|NED}} [[PSV Eindhoven]] || {{fbaicon|LTU}} [[FK Žalgiris|Žalgiris]] ||align=center| 6–0 || {{dts|format=dmy|1992|9|16}} || <ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=1992/matches/round=47/match=6239/index.html |title=UEFA Champions League 1992/93 - History - PSV-FK Žalgiris Vilnius |date=16 September 1992 |access-date=2 January 2014 |website=UEFA.com}}</ref>
....and for the sorting you will need to use a hidden sort key, for example this:
- !scope="row" data-sort-value="Ellerman"|{{flagicon|NED}} {{sortname|Juul|Ellerman}} |{{fbaicon|NED}} [[PSV Eindhoven]] || {{fbaicon|LTU}} [[FK Žalgiris|Žalgiris]] ||align=center| 6–0 || {{dts|format=dmy|1992|9|16}} || <ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=1992/matches/round=47/match=6239/index.html |title=UEFA Champions League 1992/93 - History - PSV-FK Žalgiris Vilnius |date=16 September 1992 |access-date=2 January 2014 |website=UEFA.com}}</ref>
Hope that helps!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: The score is centered. But the sort key doesn't seem to work. Could you help me with the article.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- This was the issue - that shouldn't have been in the table header code. The two actual rows which you have updated now sort correctly, so just do the same for the others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I tried your way. But it didn't work. Maybe it was my misunderstanding. I am sorry. Do help. Also wished to add that the player name was not centralized by me. It was done by another editor. I hope it is okay to you. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just do what I did with this edit for each row. You should not have "scope=col" on each row -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Done. The players sort properly now. I hope that the club sorting wouldn't be a problem. I could turn it off. (Sorting for clubs)--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - This duplicates what ChrisTheDude is saying above, just with more words: tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes on the "primary" cell of each row, lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. So, each column cell needs
!scope=col
, and does not need anything about "class" or "row". Similarly, the primary (or first) cell of each row needs!scope=row
, and nothing about "class" or "col". - 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 13:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: @PresN: I hope your concerns are sorted now.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1955
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, here's the 14th in my series of nominations of number one lists from Billboard's R&B charts. Look at some of the names on this list - Chuck Berry! Fats Domino! Bo Diddley! We're starting the motherlode of early rock and roll here. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments from BennyOnTheLoose
- I'd suggest adding a "pictured" in to images taken more than a couple of years away from 1955, e.g. Bo Diddley.
- @BennyOnTheLoose: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- All the info without inline citations from the intro is cited in the table as far as I can see.
- Sources all look reliable.
- Image positioning and captions look fine to me. You could consider expanding the alt text for the Platters image to say how many people are in the picture.
- Should "disk jockeys" be wikilinked? I have no idea how widely this term is known, globally. I'm happy to go with precedent.
- Great work, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- @BennyOnTheLoose: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Nothing else from me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- @BennyOnTheLoose: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Great work, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Aoba47
Congrats on continuing with these lists. I have a lot of respect for you for doing so and it is really helpful for readers interested in this genre of music so thank you for all the time and work you put in them. My comments are below:
- For File:Chuck Berry 1957 (square crop).jpg, the eBay link is dead, but the photo front link is active so it should be fine. I would recommend archiving this link though to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death, especially since one of the sources links is already dead.
- File:Roy Hamilton 1957.JPG has similar issues but the front and back links also appear dead.
- This is more of a note, but I appreciate the WP:Red link included in the list as it is always helpful to point out areas where a potential article can be created in the future.
- For the Billboard citations, I would specify they are accessed via Google Books.
- I would archive all the web citations, such as Citations 4, 5, and 6 just to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death, but this is not a requirement for a FLC.
- I would create a "Notes" subsection for Note A. I know it might seem rather silly to create a whole subsection just for a single note, but it does seem odd to just have it near the bottom of the page without anything.
I hope these comments are helpful. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. There is still the issue with the Roy Hamilton image links, but since I am not super well-versed in images, I will leave that up to your discretion. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review, although I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: I just removed the Hamilton image from this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. There is still the issue with the Roy Hamilton image links, but since I am not super well-versed in images, I will leave that up to your discretion. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review, although I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Dank
Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
*Drive-by comment: Ain't That a Shame is the title of our article, supporting the idea that that's the common name. Google hits suggest that just about no one calls the song Ain't It a Shame. You have an image caption saying that "It" was a misprint on the label. Is there any chance we can call the song "Ain't That a Shame" in the text and in the table? - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
|
Another drive-by comment: I think I prefer what you've done with List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1957 in the first paragraph ... you take four sentences there to cover what's covered in the first sentence here. Do you have a preference one way or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Dank: - changed this one to match that one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Source review Pass by BennyOnTheLoose
Further to Aoba's comments:
- Sources are reliable. No issues with formatting that I could see.
- publisher=AllMusic should be work=AllMusic, I think.
- Spot checks on January 1 and June 25, selected on the basis that I saw artists wiht hits in those weeks play live, were fine.
- AllMusic changed to a work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pass. (Other reviewers, please ping me if I missed anything.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
List of municipalities in Colorado
I am nominating this for featured list because this list has been extensively reworked to comply with featured list criteria. This list is an important source of information about the U.S. State of Colorado. I would appreciate any suggestions for further improvement. Buaidh talk e-mail 06:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Mattximus
Hello, I did the peer review a while back, it's significantly improved from where it was a few months ago for sure but there are still a few changes that I would like to suggest
It's best to include a symbol/colour coded box for the county seat. The way it's written now looks like it's part of the county name. Like List of municipalities in California- All images need alt-text for accessibility.
- For the first column, I would just include the city name, not the formal long form (Denver instead of "City and County of Denver", because the next column gives this information, right now it's redundant)
- Personally I would not have the rank column, the population column is sortable already and I'm not sure how much meaning "city number 196" is to the general public)
- I would not have a map column, a link to a technical pdf map is far less useful than someone simply googling it in google maps. The next column also has a coordinate link to maps. That's too many map columns.
Is it possible to switch the 2010 population column and the % change? It seems weird that the change precedes the number it changed from!
That's my first pass! Mattximus (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- The changes you made are excellent, it's in much better shape now. A few more changes left, but great work on the other changes, only some minor quibbles left:
- the Population estimates section really has no place in this article and is redundant with the lead, recommend just removing it, it's already quite a large article as is.
- The notes for Denver are on the trivial and redundant side (for example, saying it is the capital is also indicated by the symbol and colour of the box, no need to say it a third way), suggest removing all four notes.
- @Mattximus: Thanks for your suggestions. I've made all of your suggested changes:
- I've color-coded the county seats and the state capital and added symbols. I've added notes for the three county seats that extend into adjacent counties.
- I've added alt-text for all images.
- I've shortened the municipal title to the place name.
- I've eliminated the population rank column.
- I've eliminated the the map column.
- I've moved the population change column after the 2010 population column.
- Does anyone else have any suggestions?
- Quick comment – Per the Manual of Style, the bold links in the opening sentence shouldn't be there. You can either move the links to appear later in the lead or just de-bold the intro. While I'm here, you should probably have the peer review closed, since I noticed it is still open. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: Thank you. I removed the bold in the opening line. I asked for the peer review to be closed. Buaidh talk e-mail 17:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Hwy43
Here are my opening observations:
- Change the "The 20 most populous Colorado municipalities" heading to "List of municipalities" or simply "List". Regardless, we don't need to include "Colorado" as the article title already indicates where we are.
- In lieu of the above change, add
|caption=
as a parameter to the gallery template and populate as "Twenty most populous municipalities". Again, we don't need to include "Colorado". - There is a WP:SYNTH infraction to support WP:TRIVIA in the Denver photo caption. Simply remove the trivia component (i.e., most populous within X miles).
- Remove the adjective "important" in the Fort Collins caption. This is subjective WP:POV. We will let our readers form their own opinions.
- Remove the adjective "extensive" in the Westminster caption for the same reason.
- Remove the adjective "historic" in the Pueblo caption for the same reason.
- Remove the adjective "important" in the Boulder caption for the same reason.
- Remove the adjective "burgeoning" in the Castle Rock caption for the same reason. This adjective is bordering on WP:SOAPBOX.
- Remove the adjective "historic" in the Littleton caption for the same reason.
- There is an MOS:OVERLINK infraction in the Pueblo caption (i.e., unlink "Spain").
- Another two overlink infractions are in the Castle Rock caption (i.e., unlink "Denver" and "Colorado Springs" as they are already linked in their own captions).
- Another two overlink infractions are in the Broomfield caption (i.e., unlink "Denver" and "Boulder" for same reason).
- Another two overlink infractions are in the Parker and Littleton captions (i.e., unlink both instances of "Denver" for same reason).
- Double-check every reference associated with each photo caption. If content on the webpage associated with the reference does not explicitly verify the content in the caption, then the reference does not belong. I spot-checked one (Pueblo) and the landing webpage does not verify that it is "on the Arkansas River, the former boundary between the United States and Spain".
- Remove the "Colorado municipalities" heading as a result of the first change in this list and move the see also template to follow the revised heading before the gallery template.
- Remove the single sentence as it is redundant with the text in the geogroup template.
- Apply sentence case to all 272 entries in the "Type of government" column.
- Never been a fan of "Coordinates" columns as the contents are never readily understandable to the reader. However, guessing that the geogroup template needs such to work so I will not kick up a fuss. However, at minimum, remove the ability to sort that column. Sorting based on this column results in ordering that is not meaningful or understood by the reader.
- For the final row, use the sortbottom approach. See it in action at List of municipalities in Arkansas#List of municipalities.
- Also, in that final row, simply state "Total municipalities" in the first cell instead of its current contents.
I will return with comments on the lead and other prose in a bit. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The following are my comments on the lead. Hwy43 (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Remove bold from first sentence per MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDLEAD.
- Reword first sentence because it redundantly says "The [United States'] State of Colorado…".
- Why "active incorporated" municipalities? Are there inactive municipalities in Colorado? Are there unincorporated municipalities in Colorado? Municipalities are incorporated by definition. No such thing as unincorporated municipalities AFAIK, so no need to distinguish from non-existent "unincorporated municipalities". Further, if there are no inactive municipalities then no need to distinguish these as active municipalities. Please fix in lead and throughout balance of article.
- Second sentence reads as if percentage of people living in municipalities in comparison to Colorado’s population grew by 17.13% to 74.47%. This is not the case. Apples and oranges going on here. Easiest thing to do is remove everything after the comma.
- Third sentence repeats Colorado. Can remove second instance.
- Two commas are missing in the lengthy first sentence of second paragraph.
- In the second sentence of the second paragraph the reader is firmly of the understanding that we are in Colorado by now. Remove both mentions of the state in this sentence.
- In the first sentence of the third paragraph, replace "occupied" with "covered" as the former has a military occupation feel to it. Also delete second instance of the state’s name.
- In the second sentence, do you mean "expansive" instead of "extensive"?
- In the third sentence, change "least densely populated of the populated municipalities" to simply "least densely populated municipality after Carbonate" to avoid a fifth instance of "populat–" in the sentence.
I will return with comments on the Municipal government section. In the meantime:
- delete the entire Population history section. It is redundant from the information in the table above and the only value-added new content within is in the final sentence. The final sentence can be laced into the lead. Meanwhile, Population history of Colorado municipalities can be moved to either the See also section below or included in the See also template in the previous section (joining the three other articles in that template). Hwy43 (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I am going to be dark all week due to work, so I am going to provide two more comments for now, and upon my return I will circle back to go through the Municipal government section in detail.
- *Please review MOS:OVERLINK and then go through all prose sections with a fine-toothed comb to remove all duplicate wikilinks. I have already apprised of the overlink infractions within the captions in the gallery template. Overlink doesn't apply to tables. So focus only on the paragraphs. I see numerous instances of overlinking throughout the Municipal government section. Fortunately, there are no overlink instances found in the lead.
- Please review MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Specifically, the See also section should "enable readers to explore tangentially related topics", "should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number", and "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." The See also section currently has 24 entries (not a reasonable number), many of which are already linked in the article's body (e.g., Colorado, Population history of Colorado municipalities, etc.) and/or not tangential or relevant (e.g., bibliography, index, outline, geography, history, places [in general], mountain-related, rivers, protected areas, etc.). The scope of this list is municipalities. Municipalities are types of communities. The See also section should be limited to other community-related lists that are tangential and relevant (i.e., counties, census-designated places, county seats, ghost towns, populated places by county, and statistical areas) if not previously introduced in the prose of the article or in earlier see also templates. At the end of the day, many of the non-tangential/non-relevant lists are already wikilinked in the uncollapsed Template:Colorado at the bottom of the article anyway.
Looking forward to seeing the improvements to the article when I return this weekend. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Hwy43: This is a very substantial list, but I agree with almost all of your suggestions. I made the following changes:
- 1. I changed the section title "The 20 most populous Colorado municipalities" to "Gallery".
- 2-17 Done.
- 18. I kept the "Coordinates" column. I've requested that Template:Coord be updated to include conversion to 4 decimal degree places to compact coordinates.
- 19-22 Done.
- 23. There are scores of inactive incorporated municipalities in Colorado. They are called ghost towns.
- 24-28 Done.
- 29. The proper word is "extensive".
- 30. Done.
- 31. I deleted the "Population history" section and replaced it with a "Population estimates" section which includes 2021 and future population estimates from the Census Bureau.
- 32-33 Done.
- Thank you very much for these suggestions. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 01:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Re: 23, are you suggesting that all ~1,500 ghost towns in Colorado were once municipalities? In my experience, the majority of ghost towns in a state/province were never incorporated as municipalities. They were simply unincorporated communities, just as Colorado today has unincorporated communities. Meanwhile, a minority of ghost towns in a state/province were actually previously incorporated municipalities. I am going to need some evidence that 100% of Colorado’s ghost towns were previously incorporated as municipalities. I would also like to see a reliable source that existing municipalities in Colorado are commonly referred to as "active incorporated municipalities" as a means to disambiguate from former municipalities and/or ghost towns. Hwy43 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Re: 31, replacement of the "Population history" section with a "Population estimates" section is unnecessary. No need to supply a population estimate for Denver and Carbonate for the year following the 2020 census. Such details can be presented at their individual articles. Hwy43 (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Hwy43: I said scores not all. Several ghost towns have had their inactive incoporation reactivated, including Montezuma and Carbonate. Watkins went the other way and had its incorporation deactivated in 2006.
- The "Population estimates" section links to the location of the July 1, 2021 estimates for all Colorado municipalities. The estimates are located in the Population history of Colorado municipalities article rather than the List of municipalities in Colorado article because, unlike the Census figures, they are not "official" figures. The reference to Denver and Carbonate is the range of population after 15 months. (Neither increased.) Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 20:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- My concern remains. It is all or none and I recommend none because of the very reason you provided - they are not official figures. The alternative is to embed two notes in the table – one for Denver and one for Carbonate – to indicate their subsequent 2021 population estimates, or alternately embed a single note covering both at the end of the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead. Hwy43 (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. You are one of the few users with a username shorter than mine. Buaidh talk e-mail 21:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
List of Los Angeles Chargers starting quarterbacks
- Nominator(s): Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
A list of every quarterback to start at least one game for the Los Angeles Chargers. I've added details on the reasons why the Chargers have changed their quarterbacks over the years, plus citations. Hopefully up to FL standard. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "Kemp was waived" - what does this mean? Is there an appropriate link?
- "Hadl was named the starter after playing well in relief" - what is relief? Is there an appropriate link?
- "after playing well in relief in the in Week 12" - couple of stray words in there
- "Leaf, the #2 overall pick the 1998 NFL draft" - think the word "in" is missing
- "Whelihan was cut" - what does this mean? What did he get cut by?
- "didn't re-sign" => "did not re-sign"
- "Summary by quarterback" table is completely unsourced
- No explanation on the last table of what "Comp", "Att", "Yds", etc mean
- That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks - I've gone through these changes. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - The part you're not going to like, though: as per MOS:COLHEAD, those neat mid-table column headers aren't accessible. Screen readers do weird things with them, both because they're cells to which the top headers don't apply, and because you made them actual headers which is going to read weirdly for every cell below them. If you want to keep them, split the first table into three tables, otherwise they have to go.
- The post-season table is missing 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="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Los Angeles Chargers|border=2}};"|Season || style...
becomes!scope=col style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Los Angeles Chargers|border=2}};"|Season (linebreak)!scope=col style...
. - The Summary by quarterback table was messed up, but it was quicker to just fix it then try to explain- you were trying to have some columns take 2 rows when the second row didn't exist.
- 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 00:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks - changes now made. Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
List of accolades received by CODA (2021 film)
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
CODA is a 2021 coming-of-age comedy-drama film written and directed by Sian Heder. An adaptation of the French-Belgian film La Famille Bélier (2014), it stars Emilia Jones as the titular child of deaf adults (CODA) and the only hearing member of a deaf family, who attempts to help their struggling fishing business while pursuing her desire to be a singer. This is my eighth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, Dunkirk, If Beale Street Could Talk, 1917, The Shape of Water, and Slumdog Millionaire. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81talk 09:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "After debuting at the 2021 Sundance Film Festival on January 28, 2021, Apple Inc....." - Apple did not debut at the 2021 Sundance Festival
- "particular praise for its Heder's screenplay" - stray word "its"
- Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Done - Everything has been addressed.
- --Birdienest81talk 20:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Chompy Ace
- Wikilink Ann Hornaday and A. O. Scott in references.
- Replace Next Best Picture ref (since it is a blog) at source 55 with Spagnoli Gabardi, Chiara (December 14, 2021). "The Women Film Critics Circle Announces Its 2021 Winners, Tributing Hall's Passing and Campion's The Power of the Dog". Cinema Daily US. Archived from the original on December 17, 2021. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
- That's it, and what a very good list! Great job! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 07:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Chompy Ace: Done - I have read your comments, and made the adjustments based on your feedback. Thanks.
- --Birdienest81talk 20:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support Chompy Ace 21:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations
List of Lionhead Studios games
This is the second of a pair of lists that chart the rise and fall of Peter Molyneux... this one being the fall. Molyneux and his Bullfrog Productions studio had been famous and successful in the 90s for creating innovative games, and having broken free of EA to found Lionhead Studios, Molyneux was prepared to replicate that success without the stifling corporate oversight. And, for a time, it worked- they came out of the gate strong with the creative Black & White and Fable. And then Black & White 2 didn't sell well, and neither did The Movies, a business simulation/movie making game that had the misfortune of coming out just before YouTube became a thing, and in the background Lionhead was hemorrhaging cash on projects that never seemed to turn into sellable games, so just like Bullfrog and EA, Lionhead was bought by their publisher, Microsoft. And again like Bullfrog and EA, Microsoft turned it into just the Fable developers, and it released 5 more games in the franchise before being shut down.
All of this wouldn't mean the fall of Molyneux, though, except that this was the era that his mouth finally got him in trouble. Molyneux had always talked a big game, but in the 2000s it got away from him- he would promise game features that didn't work yet (and never did), and would even tell the press things would be in a game that were just an idea he just had that he hadn't even told the devs yet. By the time he left Lionhead, he was synonymous with radical, innovative over-promising, and he hasn't released a full game since. This is all just flavor text, though- this is a list of games in the end, including a bunch of cancelled games because, like Bullfrog, Lionhead was really open about that. This list follows the pattern of all the prior lists I've done on 90s/early 2000s developers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic/Firaxis/Blizzard/Relic/Bullfrog), so I hope you enjoy it, and thanks for reviewing. --PresN 20:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- Does the single reference at the end of the first paragraph source the entire paragraph?
- "Shooter game, Music game" - music probably doesn't need a capital
- That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Yes it does, and fixed. Thanks! --PresN 03:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support It looks good, I don't see any issues as well.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
List of all-time NBA win–loss records
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the FL criteria and I believe it it conveys critical NBA historical information in an easily navigable list that has context provided to ensure it is not just a list. Thank you Soulbust (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
Will do a full review later but put this here largely as a reminder to myself......
- I would suggest putting a tooltip on "pct" in the same way that you have for "GP". I don't think it's at all obvious that "pct" means "percentage", especially given that the figure is shown as a decimal and not with a percentage symbol....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
More comments
- Whole of the first paragraph is unsourced
- " These records include wins and losses recorded by a team's playing time" - doesn't seem to make sense. Suggest " These records include wins and losses recorded during a team's playing time"
- "Additionally, the records do not count wins and losses" - I think you can ditch that first word
- "Conversely, the Pelicans have played the least overall games" => "Conversely, the Pelicans have played the fewest overall games"
- Per MOS:COLOUR, colour alone should not be used to highlight something, for reasons of accessibility. A symbol should also be used.
- The muddy yellow colour used to indicate "Team active in Play-in" isn't actually used in the table, although I guess maybe it might be used at some point?
- Yeah, it's definitely in-use during that point in the season. Same with the playoffs section, in which "Most recent champion" would switch over to "Team active in playoffs", and read as such until the playoffs are over and a champion is crowned. Was wondering if this is alright? I figure it is, as long as its maintained. Soulbust (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- How is "Team in playoff drought" defined? Are the Lakers really in a "drought" because they failed to reach the playoffs for one season? Seems harsh!
- Yes, one year constitutes as a drought haha. Other articles/lists on Wikipedias, namely List of NFL franchise post-season droughts and List of NBA franchise post-season droughts list teams with 1 missed season as a drought. Also this NBC Sports article writes that "The New England Patriots ended a one-year playoff drought in 2021 by earning the AFC’s No. 6 seed with a 10-7 record," so it seems as sports media also thinks droughts can be just 1 year. Soulbust (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- All the notes about teams previously playing in other cities (apart from the very convoluted not J :-)) are unsourced
- "The Hawks would begin" - why not just "The Hawks began"?
- The table apparently goes up to 2022, but is sourced to the 2019–20 Official NBA Guide, published in 2019.......?
- All the other tables are totally unsourced as far as I can see
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Snooker world rankings 1978/1979
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it includes all of the relevant information, with suitable sources. The layout closely follows that for Snooker world rankings 1977/1978 which was successfully nominated as a featured list. Thanks for your consideration. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments
I think my only comment is one which I raised at a previous FLC but I can't remember what the outcome was. How come five players with 0 total points made it into the rankings? There must be more players who did not reach the last 16 of any of the previous three World Championships than just those five, so why were those five players officially ranked and the others not.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, ChrisTheDude. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snooker world rankings 1977/1978/archive1. I can still offer no explanation of how some players with 0 points were included. (I did think they should be omitted based on the Snooker Scene article where the rankings were published in 1978, but those players are listed in Chris Turner's Snooker Archive and in Kobylecky's The Complete International Directory of Snooker Players – 1927 to 2018). I've added
"It is unclear why five players with 0 points were included in the rankings."
to the text, which is equivalent to what happened for the 1977/1978 list article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.| 1 ||data-sort-value="Reardon, Ray"...
becomes!scope=row | 1 (linebreak)|data-sort-value="Reardon, Ray"...
. 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 00:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, PresN. On the previous year's table I had used the player's name as the "primary cell", but I think that their ranking position should probably be the primary cell in the context of a ranking list. What do you think? Hopefully the changes I've made are OK. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
List of prime ministers of Australia
I have expanded and improved on the lead section, added citations for much of it, and moved around sentences. Australia is one of the few prominent countries whose list of leaders is not featured, so I am taking it here. Please ping me if you have any queries or requests. Thanks, JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- Lead looks weird with the image at the left and the TOC forced to the upper right. Any reason for this?
- The TOC was in the right when it started working on it, so I didn't change that. I have fixed that.
- OK, now the TOC is being forced into the text of the lead, causing some sandwiching issues - why not just let it sit where it would go naturally? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have fixed that. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- "however the Prime Minister is still appointed by the Governor-General [....] which empowers the governor-general" - inconsistent capitalisation
- Fixed.
- So the PM chooses the G-G, who appoints the PM who chose him? Have I understood that correctly?
- @ChrisTheDude: Drive-by reply. I think they follow a similar system as the UK so the PM is appointed by the Queen (or in this case her representative the Governor General) if they command the support of parliament. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of ministers. They don't have a fixed term but generally serve for about 5 years, the current one was nominated by the previous PM Scott Morrison. Cowlibob (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense, but at present the wording reads like the Governor-General appoints the PM, who then selects the Governor-General who appointed them in the first place. Does that make sense? Is there a way to re-word to avoid this suggestion of a paradox.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unsure as what to do. To make it clear to you, the Queen technically selects the Governor-General, however the Prime Minister actually selects them and sends that to the Queen. I don't know how to make it clearer in the article, perhaps someone can give a suggestion? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Maybe the following suggestion with supporting refs of course. "The role of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution of Australia, however the Prime Minister is still appointed by the Governor-General who under Section 64 of the constitution has the executive power to appoint ministers of state. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen of Australia based on the advice of the Prime Minister. They do not have a fixed term but generally serve for five years." Cowlibob (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unsure as what to do. To make it clear to you, the Queen technically selects the Governor-General, however the Prime Minister actually selects them and sends that to the Queen. I don't know how to make it clearer in the article, perhaps someone can give a suggestion? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense, but at present the wording reads like the Governor-General appoints the PM, who then selects the Governor-General who appointed them in the first place. Does that make sense? Is there a way to re-word to avoid this suggestion of a paradox.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- "however, of those who have served as the nation's prime minister, three died in office" - I think all the words between the commas here are redundant
- Fixed, that was a result of moving sentences around to fit better.
- "six resigned following leadership spills (John Gorton, Bob Hawke, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, and Malcolm Turnbull)" - Hawke and Rudd are randomly not linked here (although I have now noticed that both are linked the second time they are mentioned
- Not sure what happened there, fixed.
- "(Joseph Cook in 1914, Gough Whitlam in 1975, whose dismissal caused a constitutional crisis, and Malcolm Fraser in 1983)" - Whitlam randomly not linked
- Fixed.
- All the people who are mentioned multiple times in the lead should probably just be referred to by their surname on the second mention per MOS:SURNAME
- Fixed.
- "The prime ministership of Frank Forde, who was Prime Minister for 8 days in 1945" => "The prime ministership of Frank Forde, who was Prime Minister for eight days in 1945"
- The table says he served for seven days, not eight
- Fixed.
- Source for note a?
- Fixed.
- Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your feedback; all fixed! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I think I've fixed all of your suggestions, if you have anything else, please let me know. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- The photo of the Lodge is low quality and a bad crop, can we find another? Maybe one of multiple prime ministers together GeebaKhap (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- The forced with "width:100%" in the table isn't necessary and adds white space, including around the portraits.
- That was how it was when I started working, reduced to 60%.
- "with thirty-one people serving in the position since the office was created in 1901" is weird to have as a subordinate clause; just have it as its own sentence.
- Done.
- Replace however with but in the second sentence (currently a comma splice)
- Done.
- "the length of time a Parliament serves for" may be better as "the length of time a Parliament is elected for"
- Done.
- The second paragraph is a bit weird in that it's worded to give all the exceptions to when PMs didn't serve for three years. This misses Deacon's first term of 216 days, Watson's 113 day term, Reid, Deakon's second, Hughes, Bruce, Scullin, and others whose terms are also not multiples of three years. I think it'd be better to present the reasons for leaving on their own.
- I added a group for the first few, the others either happened due to being the winner or loser in a spill or had other weird exits happen that don't fit in with anything else. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The non-consecutive terms are irrelevant to the current officeholder; why are these statements combined with a semicolon?
- Done.
- It says Menzies served two terms, but didn't he serve eight, even if not consecutive?
- Reworded to say 'over two non-consecutive periods'.
- Columns need to be made sortable
- Done.
- Please avoid WP:SMALLTEXT. There's no need to shrink the dates or ministries.
- @Reywas92: There are quite a few examples of smalltext on the page. Should just the dates and ministries be enlarged or the electorates as well? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office should be redirected/merged here as unnecessary once this is sortable. List of prime ministers of Australia (graphical) could probably also be merged.
Reywas92Talk 22:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sent the former to AFD, and proposed a merger for the latter. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Done some of them, will do a bit more later. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead.
- Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You're mostly good here, with the
!scope=col
in each header cell, but 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" |Sir [[Edmund Barton]]
becomes!scope=row align="center" |Sir [[Edmund Barton]]
, and you'll need to make that cell be on its own line in the wikicode (because of the !). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. Normally the first cell of each row is the "header", but the way you split Billy Hughes into three rows makes that dicey.
- I don't usually deal with colors, but some of these background color/text color are not accessible- the white on fluorescent green is particularly unreadable, but the white on light blue for the Fusion Liberal Party is also no good. [2] says that just flipping the text to black, if you must have that color green and pale blue, would be fine.
- Also, consider doing what List of presidents of the United States did for this issue, and make the colors be a bar inside of the "party" column instead of a background to the first "number" cell; this would also let you make the first cell of each row be the row header.
- 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 01:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
List of municipalities in Quebec
After a two-year hiatus and an arduous effort on this one due to the number of municipalities (1,231!) and the French-language barrier within sources, here is the 13th and final nomination in the set of Canada's 13 "lists of municipalities in province/territory". The end-goal is in sight. Upon bringing all 13 lists of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status, a featured topic nomination will be pursued. The standardized format from the 12 other featured lists (British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island) has been carried forward. Suggestions received from the previous 11 nominations have been taken into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
Good to see this concluded!
- Row scopes should be like
!scope=row
, not|scope=row
, which makes it a "header" cell for the row in the wikicode. Note that this means you'll need a line break after the first cell so that any "header" formatting doesn't carry over to the next cell(s).
- Done
- Col scopes are for the top of the table, which you have, but then you also have them for the summary at the bottom of the table, which isn't right. Screen reader software uses the col scopes to read out what column/row a cell is, so having extras makes it messed up. It's hard to explain in words what the change should be, but
|- class="sortbottom" align="center" style="background-color:#f2f2f2" |
!scope="col" align="center"| '''Total regional county municipalities'''
|{{change|3909607|3738625|dec=1|align=center|invert=on|bold=on|bgcolour=#f2f2f2}}
|scope="col" align="center"| '''{{nts|553765.38}}'''
|scope="col" align="center"| '''{{Pop density|3909607|553765.38|km2|prec=2}}'''
should be
|- class="sortbottom" align="center" style="background-color:#f2f2f2" |
!scope="row" align="center"| '''Total regional county municipalities'''
|{{change|3909607|3738625|dec=1|align=center|invert=on|bold=on|bgcolour=#f2f2f2}}
|align="center"| '''{{nts|553765.38}}'''
|align="center"| '''{{Pop density|3909607|553765.38|km2|prec=2}}'''
and the same for the second row.
- Done
- When a header column spans multiple columns, like in
!scope="col" colspan=5| [[Canada 2021 Census|2021 Census of Population]]
at the top, it should be!scope=colgroup
instead of col. Same for rowgroup and rowspans, but you don't have any.
- Done
- Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 13:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1998
"Near...far..." it didn't matter where you were in 1998. This song was inescapable even if you switched to Spanish-language radio stations. Anyways, in 1998, the chart went unpublished for two weeks because of the damage to radio monitoring systems in Puerto Rico by Hurricane Georges. So I'm interested to see if how I wrote it works. Erick (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- Firstly, how weird that Latin pop radio played that dreary Celine Dion song so much that it actually got to number one on this chart. But that's nothing to do with this review :-)
- "were not published on the weeks of October 10 and October 17" - I would change this to "were not published in the issues dated October 10 and October 17"
- "It remained on the top position for five more weeks" => "It remained in the top position for five more weeks"
- "Ponce had established himself as a soap opera actor on his entertainment career before becoming a musical artist" - I think just "Ponce had established himself as a soap opera actor before becoming a musical artist" would suffice
- "Estefan was the only female act to have more than one chart-topper" - might be worth mentioning all the acts with multiple number ones here and then point out that Gloria was the only female one. Seems a bit odd to highlight her and not mention the others at all.
- "Ricky Martin [...] was named the best-performing song of the year" - it wasn't Ricky that was named best-performing song of the year, so change the "and" after the song's title to ",which"
- "having spent three weeks on this position" => "having spent three weeks in this position"
- "Martin is the first artist in the chart's history to replace himself at number one when" => "Martin was the first artist in the chart's history to replace himself at number one when"
- "Alejandro Sanz is the only other artist with their first number one "Amiga Mía"" - he wasn't, because you then go on to say that OV7 had their first and only number one this year. So rephrase to "Alejandro Sanz also gained his first number one with "Amiga Mía""
- Missing quote mark on Te Quiero Tanto, Tanto"
- Is telenovela normally shown in italics? It looks a bit odd with that word and then the title all in italics - it makes it look a bit like the word telenovela is part of the title
- Eso es todo :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yeah I remember the Titanic mania as well having the soundtrack for it and all that, lol. Anyways, I looked at the article for telenovela and you're right, it's not italicized so I removed the italics. I believe I got everything else as well. Erick (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- Billboard magazine should be italicized in the first sentence of the article.
- I also suggest adding the fact that "My Heart Will Go On" was just the second English song in the chart's history that reached the top spot. (The first one was Selena's "I Could Fall In Love".) Source
- That's it, great work! آرمین هویدایی (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- آرمین هویدایی (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments by AJona1992
There seems to be an inconsistency with (pictured) throughout the images provided.- Billboard should be italicized.
- That's all I have during my read. Once these have been addressed, I will support this nomination. Best – jona ✉ 13:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not wishing to speak on behalf of the nom but presumably "(pictured)" is in the Ponce image caption because there are two people mentioned in that caption so it's to avoid the (admittedly slight but still theoretical) possibility of people not knowing which one is pictured..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Source review – As with the similar lists I've looked at, the references are reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were found by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Image review – All four of the photos have appropriate free licenses. While alt text isn't strictly required, only one of the four images currently has it and it would be nice to see it added to the others. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
List of Bullfrog Productions games
After a long string of animal lists, I'm taking a break to resume a project I last touched in 2019: a series of lists of games from 90s video game developers/publishers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic/Firaxis/Blizzard/Relic). There's not much of a theme to these lists beyond "in the right time period for me to have played at least one of their games when I was younger", but they all have their own stories. This one is part one of a duology of the rise and fall of Peter Molyneux, famous for being the creative lead behind a lot of amazing—and amazingly overhyped—video games.
This one is the rise, about the video game studio started, appropriately enough, with the money made by hyping a pack of lies about what his software company could do. They hit it into the big leagues almost immediately with Populous, the biggest seller of 1989 and still one of the best-selling PC games 30+ years later. From there they had a wildly successful 6 years, at which point Molynuex et al sold out to Electronic Arts for, to be fair, an absurd amount of money plus a vice presidentship despite having no real ability to run international businesses. Two years later Molyneux and a lot of the creative staff were gone, and Bullfrog—termed the most innovative and imaginative video game company in the world just prior to being bought—hung on making sequels for another four years before getting closed.
This list has a big section of cancelled games, because of a pair of Molyneux-isms: he announces games way too early, and also hangs on to projects even if they're not working, sometimes for years. So, we have sources and even articles on projects that never became products. If you've heard of Molyneux in this century, it's likely for what he got up to after this company—in this era, though, he was a king, who designed a series of innovative projects developed with firm technological constraints but not financial ones. I've tried to shake off the rust for this list type and follow my prior patterns, so I hope you enjoy it, and thanks for reviewing. --PresN 02:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "and lead the company" => "and led the company"
- "Bullfrog released a further five games after his departure through 2001" - as this article is about a British subject I presume it is written in British English and over here we don't use the expression "through [date]". Change this to "between his departure and 2001"
- Where the first note gives multiple genres, there's inconsistency as to whether the second is capitalised, eg we have both "Real-time strategy game, God game" and "Real-time strategy game, god game"
- That's all I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: All done, thanks! --PresN 16:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
What a pleasant surprise to see this list here, played so many of their games.
|
- Support Cowlibob (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support Just like the lionhead studios article, it looks like the quality of a featured list.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Source/image review – The page doesn't have any images, so that part is easy. All of the references are reliable and well-formatted. I will note that the script I've installed that attempts to flag unreliable sources is giving a yellow caution highlighting for GameSpot links, for some reason. This surprises me since GameSpot is one of the more reliable gaming sites. Maybe the script thinks it is GameStop instead? It isn't a concern for this review, but I wanted to pass it along as the video game project might want to inquire as to why that is happening. The link-checker tool is flagging a PlayStation.com link as being dead, but I can't see it in the article anywhere. Please double-check that I didn't miss it in there and repair/replace it if you find it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: I'm not sure why Gamespot gets flagged- Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources has it as reliable. It may be because their game database shouldn't be used directly, which the text there notes. There is a playstation.com link in ref 45, but it's dead and marked as such and archived. --PresN 00:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- That was the one. Happy to see that it had been archived; not sure why the tool didn't pick up on it. Either way, I'd say that both reviews have been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
List of Philippine submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film
I decided to give this article a complete rework by expanding/adding a substantial and informative lead, fixing formatting issues, and adding reliable sourcing. I've tailored the structure to FLs on submissions to the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film from countries such as Latvia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Vietnam. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "Judy Ann Santos's two films [...] were submitted" - worded like this it indicates that she has only ever made two films, which I don't believe is the case
- I've reworded the caption to avoid confusion
- Refs after "screened for the jury" are out of numerical order
- Fixed order
- Same after "precursor to the current category"
- Fixed ref order
- "From 1956 until the establishment of the FAP in 1981, only four films have been submitted for consideration" => "From 1956 until the establishment of the FAP in 1981, only four films were submitted for consideration"
- Done
- "Since the FAP was founded, the Philippines has, on an irregular basis, submitted an entry to the Academy; Of the Flesh in 1984 and This Is My Country in 1985, with no film submissions until 1995's Harvest Home.". Not sure this really works, as it hasn't been irregular for most of the last 40 years. I would suggest "After the FAP was founded, the Philippines submitted Of the Flesh in 1984 and This Is My Country in 1985, but then made no submissions until 1995's Harvest Home. Since then, the FAP has submitted a film in most years."
- Agreed, changed as suggested.
- Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your review ChrisTheDude, always appreciated. I have actioned the above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
NØ
- Brillante Mendonza seems to be a director. If true I think you could replace the sentence in the caption with this: "Two films directed by Brillante Mendoza were submitted"
- Added in the caption
- "but then made no submissions until 1995's Harvest Home" - The word "then" could probably be omitted from this sentence.
- Removed
- Since a picture of Mendonza has been chosen to be a part of the infobox, I'm inclined to ask if he should be mentioned in the lead too?
- Good point, I have added a mention in the lead.
- Alt texts for the pictures would be recommended, if that parameter is possible for all four.
- Oh right, seemed to have forgot about this. ALT texts added
- Since none of the films got nominated, is it appropriate to include it as a column? A sentence like "None of the films were nominated" could probably be used as summary, no?
- The lead mentions this In total, the Philippines has made 32 submissions to the category, but none have been nominated for an Oscar; and from the Results column in the table? Did you mean an additional summary elsewhere? I've tailored the structure to the most recent promotion—Latvia
- I meant the Result column is redundant and could be removed in favour of one line somewhere that says "None of the submissions received nominations". Although that would be a lot of unnecessary work and I understand if you want to stick to the last promotion's format.
- The lead mentions this In total, the Philippines has made 32 submissions to the category, but none have been nominated for an Oscar; and from the Results column in the table? Did you mean an additional summary elsewhere? I've tailored the structure to the most recent promotion—Latvia
- That's it from me after a few reads.--NØ 08:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
---|
Quick comments –
|
List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens
- Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 11:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens is an American film that received numerous accolades from various outlets. I nominated this list since I have reworked and expanded this list as its first nomination did not gain any support(s). Chompy Ace 11:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
- There's some oddities when sorting the recipients column. Andy Nelson sorts between Roger Guyett and Rick Hankins. April Webster sorts between Lessons and Name. Joshua Lee sorts between Daisy Ridley and Neal Scanlan.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude Fixed. Chompy Ace 00:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
More comments
- "The film have received" => "The film has received"
- Star Wars: The Force Awakens – (John Boyega) - dash and brackets combo looks odd
- Star Wars: The Force Awakens (LA) - what's LA in this context?
- Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude all Done. Chompy Ace 22:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comments by Birdienest81
The only thing I would change is for websites whose Wikipedia pages are not italicized (BBC News, Box Office Mojo, GMA Network, The Numbers, etc.), move the citation field from "website" to "publisher". Otherwise, great work. Would you take a look at 94th Academy Awards, regarding its featured list nomination?
- --Birdienest81talk 08:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Birdienest81
per MOS:ITALICWEBCITE, "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title inChompy Ace 21:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)- Birdienest81? Also, I cannot do it because that guideline linked to it would affect with {{Cite Box Office Mojo}} and/or {{Cite Rotten Tomatoes}}, since they automatically do themselves. It would be the case per List of accolades received by The Shape of Water. Chompy Ace 20:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Birdienest81: Done except those website-specific citation templates (which conforms MOS:ITALICWEBCITE) per above comment. Chompy Ace 22:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support: I forgot about that Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo has its own template. So yes, those cannot be overridden. However, BBC News, GMA Network, The Numbers, etc. do not have their own template. So those should be placed under publisher or agency fields. Otherwise, good work.
- --Birdienest81talk 07:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Birdienest81: Done except those website-specific citation templates (which conforms MOS:ITALICWEBCITE) per above comment. Chompy Ace 22:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Birdienest81? Also, I cannot do it because that guideline linked to it would affect with {{Cite Box Office Mojo}} and/or {{Cite Rotten Tomatoes}}, since they automatically do themselves. It would be the case per List of accolades received by The Shape of Water. Chompy Ace 20:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Birdienest81
List of Music Bank Chart winners (2016)
- Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Jal11497 (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the fourth Music Bank related list that I am nominating. I started working on it back in April and now I believe that it is ready to become a featured list. -- EN-Jungwon 16:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "Both singles spent a total of ten weeks at number making Twice the act with the most wins of the year" - as you literally just mentioned in the last sentence that each single spent five weeks at number one, I think this could be expressed more elegantly as "The total of ten weeks which the singles spent at number one made Twice the act with the most wins of the year"
- Done.
- "The group ranked four singles at number one in 2016 achieved with "Sing for You", "Monster", "Lotto" and "For Life", the most of any act in 2016" => "The group achieved four number ones in 2016, the most of any act during the year: "Sing for You", "Monster", "Lotto" and "For Life"."
- Done.
- "Member Baekhyun along with Miss A member Bae Suzy won their first Music Bank trophy for their collaboration song "Dream"." - specify first solo trophy, as Baekhyun had previously won as a group member (and Bae Suzy may have done too, I haven't checked previous years' articles)
- "A number of acts achieved their first number ones in 2016." - would this not make more sense being placed before the previous sentence?
- Done.
- ""Monster" by Exo (pictured) earned the highest score of 2016, with 11,570 points at the June 17th broadcast." => ""Monster" by Exo (pictured) earned the highest score of 2016, with 11,570 points on the June 17th broadcast."
- Done.
- The singer called Bae Suzy in the prose is only called Suzy in the image caption and in the table - any reason for this?
- Done.
- She's still just recorded as Suzy in the table.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Done.
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude all done. Apologies for taking over a month. I had completely forgotten about this until I saw your edit on my watchlist. -- EN-Jungwon 12:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
List of World Heritage Sites in Thailand
- Nominator(s): Tone 07:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thailand has six WHS and a further seven on the tentative list. The style is standard for the WHS lists. Italy has just been promoted (many thanks to everyone who found time to go through that massive list - the next couple of nominations will be shorter) and Cambodia is already seeing some support, so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 07:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- Sukhothai (Wat_Mahathat pictured) - lose that underscore
- "They were important in development of first distinct Siamese architectural style" => "They were important in the development of the first distinct Siamese architectural style"
- "The large sandstone rock formations in the area have inspired peoples through centuries" => "The large sandstone rock formations in the area have inspired peoples throughout the centuries"
- Buddha is wikilinked in at least two places, only needs linking once
- "It is located on a rim of an extinct volcano" => "It is located on the rim of an extinct volcano"
- "the remains of the water managements system" => "the remains of the water management system"
- That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! I left Buddha linked because of the sortable tables, the rest if fixed. Tone 10:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by comments
- First sentence in lede is somewhat convoluted, could do with copy-editing. Eg in "which have been nominated by countries which are signatories to the" the phrase "countries which are" could be dropped, as only countries can be signatories.
- Conventions are adopted, not established.
- Map: Per H:Colorblind - red and green should not be used together, needs a new colour scheme, would suggest yellow, green and light green.
- Map caption mentions sites five times. What about: "World Heritage Sites in Thailand. Yellow indicates sites of cultural value, green natural (with the multi-site Dong Phayayen–Khao Yai Forest Complex light green)"
- As of 2022, Thailand has six sites on the list. -> As of 2022, Thailand has successfully nominated six sites to the list.
- As of 2022, Thailand also has seven sites on the tentative list. -> As of 2022, Thailand has placed an additional seven sites on the tentative list.
- See also section: perhaps add History of Thailand and Geography of Thailand.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
List of Coppa Italia finals
- Nominator(s): Dr Salvus, Foghe, Snowflake91 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Since March 2021, I have often read the second nomination and I think I have fixed every user's concern about it. (If I haven't, it may be because I had written many cazzate in it.) I hadn't nominated it before due to a fear to fail it for the fourth time, but I now think the article is OK. I couldn't find the attendance prior to the 1980s, but remember the cup didn't even have television broadcast at that moment, so I think the attendance information wasn't registrated.. Dr Salvus 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Though semi-active, I'd like to co-nominate Foghe. He's the one who made the article decent on 18 June 2020. Dr Salvus 13:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Goldsztajn (copy-edits to lede)
- "Since the first final between Vado and Udinese" Link Vado and Udinese
Done
- "...the initial game ended in a scoreless draw" goalless draw.
Done
- "to assign the cup" ... to determine the winner.
Done
- "Inter Milan is the only team
to manageto win the Serie A..."
Done
- "From 1923 to 1925, from 1928 to 1935 and from 1944 to 1957, the tournament was not held." ... The tournament was not held in the years 1923–1925, 1928–1935 and 1944–1957.
Done
- It was reintroduced in 1958, in the light of the UEFA project" ... It was recommenced in 1958, in conjunction with the UEFA project...
Done
- "Juventus hold the record for winning the most titles (14)" ... holds
This article is not written in US English. However, I've changed "Inter Milan is" to "Inter Milan are".
- "the highest number of consecutive cups" ... the highest number of consecutive victories in the final
Done
- "and of having played in the most finals" ... and playing in the most finals.
Done
- "share the worst win–loss record with three defeats and no successes" either: "three losses and no wins" or "three defeats and no victories"
Done
- "The teams from outside the top Italian football league system that managed to win the cup are Vado in 1922 (from Promozione[a]) and Napoli in 1962 (from Serie B)." ... Two teams from outside the top league have won the cup: Vado in 1922 (from Promozione[a]) and Napoli in 1962 (from Serie B). Unlink Vado (link at first appearance).
Done
- "On seven occasions, the result was a scoreless draw" goalless
Done
- "after extra time in the 2022 final." in extra time at the 2022 final
Done
- (infobox caption+picture) "Stadio Olimpico in Rome has hosted the Coppa Italia final in recent years" Not a particularly useful picture, does not actually depict a cup final match. There are images available in Commons - either a photo of the cup, or from one of the finals itself. Depicting the stadium is not really the most prominent feature of this list.
Done Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- This image actually depicts a Cup Final. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Goldsztajn: Done.
- Comment: Are you sure that "at the 2022 final" is actually better? In many other articles, including the FL articles like List of FA Cup Finals, List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals etc., its "in the final", not "at"... even the top tier English sources which would definitely use correct grammar, like BBC, are using "in the (2019) final" (1, 2), and UEFA also uses "after extra time in the 2018 final" (3), so "after extra time in the 2022 final" is better than "in extra time at the 2022 final". Snowflake91 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Snowflake91@Dr Salvus - it was the structure of the sentence that appeared somewhat jarring to me (I guess I don't like the use of "beat"). I'm not particularly wedded to one version, personally I prefer "in" over "after", but of course that means avoiding a double use of "in", hence my suggested use of "at". If there's use of the form after/in with the other articles, I'm not opposed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Goldsztajn I honestly think "in" is OK. It doesn't look weird to me. I've done all the changes except the one which was not standard in UK English. Can you support my nomination if you don't have anything else? Dr Salvus 22:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus For consistency's sake need to change "Inter Milan are" to "is". British English uses the singular for collective nouns when the entity being described is considered a singular unit - so a team wins a match (singular), whereas police are investigating (plural) a crime. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Goldsztajn Done. Inter is and Juventus holds. Dr Salvus 22:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus apologies for creating confusion - I didn't mean to suggest removing the infobox, I thought *only* the caption and image in the infobox could be improved. I think the infobox information was a very useful summary and would encourage its inclusion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Goldsztajn I don't have my PC right now. Please, can you please insert it yourself? Dr Salvus 23:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus apologies for creating confusion - I didn't mean to suggest removing the infobox, I thought *only* the caption and image in the infobox could be improved. I think the infobox information was a very useful summary and would encourage its inclusion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Goldsztajn Done. Inter is and Juventus holds. Dr Salvus 22:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Dr Salvus For consistency's sake need to change "Inter Milan are" to "is". British English uses the singular for collective nouns when the entity being described is considered a singular unit - so a team wins a match (singular), whereas police are investigating (plural) a crime. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Goldsztajn I honestly think "in" is OK. It doesn't look weird to me. I've done all the changes except the one which was not standard in UK English. Can you support my nomination if you don't have anything else? Dr Salvus 22:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Snowflake91@Dr Salvus - it was the structure of the sentence that appeared somewhat jarring to me (I guess I don't like the use of "beat"). I'm not particularly wedded to one version, personally I prefer "in" over "after", but of course that means avoiding a double use of "in", hence my suggested use of "at". If there's use of the form after/in with the other articles, I'm not opposed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that the alleged source "Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio – La storia 1898–2004" doesnt actually have attendances information for Coppa finals, it would make no sense that they would list attendances for 1960, 1963, and then nothing until 1974, and then again nothing until 1988. Looks like those attendances are taken from Italian Wikipedia, backed up with some random football book that no one has access to verifiy. If you actually have access to that book, can you scan one page or take a photo with a phone, for example the information that 1975 final had 40,000 spectators? If not, than simply delete those unverified attendances and list only the attendances since the 1990s, with some note that attendances prior that date are simply not available. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have the access to it. I've asked at it.wiki whether somebody has it. I admit I was actually cheating. Dr Salvus 12:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- Wikilink football in the first sentence
Done
- "74 Coppa Italia trophies have been assigned" - this is wording that would literally never be used by a native English speaker. I would simply say "74 finals have taken place"
Done
- Any reason for the inconsistent use of digits and words for numbers over 10 eg "There have been 40 single-match finals [....] On thirty occasions....."
Done
- "Inter Milan is the only team to win the Serie A, the Coppa Italia and the UEFA Champions League in the same year, in 2010" - source?
Done
- "Juventus holds the record [....] AC Milan have lost" - inconsistent use of singular/plural to refer to a club
Done
- "Of the teams which have participated in more than one final, Palermo and Hellas Verona, share......" - no reason for that comma after Verona
Done
- "with three defeats and no victories, each" - no reason for that comma either
Done
- "Number of teams 44" (in the infobox) - presumably this is the current number of teams but I am unsure of the value of showing this as I would imagine it has changed quite a lot over the years
- It has not at all.
- "Team from outside the top Italian football league system" => "Team from outside the top level of the Italian football league system"
Done
- Per the comment above about attendances, the figures from 1988 to 2004 still seem to be sourced to a book which you admit you don't have access to. Are you 100% certain that this book sources the figures listed?
- I'm adding the sources. No one has replied me at it.wiki. Dr Salvus 20:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- worldfootball.net appears to have finals attendance records from 1987/88. I've not checked them all, but appear to match what is in the article. Each one should be referenced. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- It was what I was doing... Dr Salvus 20:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude I've done them all but the number of teams. It does not change often. Dr Salvus 21:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- It was what I was doing... Dr Salvus 20:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- worldfootball.net appears to have finals attendance records from 1987/88. I've not checked them all, but appear to match what is in the article. Each one should be referenced. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- For the La Stampa sources you have added, the title should be the actual title of the newspaper article, not "La Stampa - Consultazione Archivio" e.g. the first one should be "La Roma è finalmente prima" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude Done. Can you support or is something else needed? Dr Salvus 10:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- 1980–81 has the same link for both matches, the title and the date in the reference are correct but the URL is wrong, the second match should link to the 18 June 1981 newspaper – I dont know how to change the URL, because even if you switch to 18 June the URL stays the same at that website. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have just removed the number of team information. I have done everything that you said. Dr Salvus 21:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude and @Goldsztajn is there anything to prevent you from supporting it? Dr Salvus 20:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude and @Goldsztajn is there anything to prevent you from supporting it? Dr Salvus 20:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Barbie's careers
- Nominator(s): Antihistoriaster (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Antihistoriaster
I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive, thoroughly documented, well-organized and, to me at least, pretty fascinating as a window into culture and toy history.
Antihistoriaster (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Antihistoriaster
Comments from Lil-Unique1
- Oppose - Clearly this has taken a lot of time, well done on your dedication and committment. I do have some concerns though. The article lacks context, it is in essence an index of jobs that Barbie has had. I also have trouble with that very terminology. Is it about the doll or about the character as she has appeared in anime/Tv/movies? If its about the doll, then dolls do not have professions people do. Dolls are inanimate objects. Therefore is this not about the costumes/outfits and accessories Barbie comes with? as e.g. Barbie dressed as a doctor NOT Barbie as a doctor. All of that aside, I don't think it passes our quality standards either:
- Barbie's Careers sounds awkward. Is there a better title?
- Does this pass WP:NLIST? Has the topic of the careers of Barbie received significant coverage?
- At the moment, almost everything is matter of fact - primary sources saying there's a doctor barbie etc. but no context.
- The second paragraph is one sentence and reads
According to Mattel, Barbie has had over 200 careers, recently including more STEM fields.
The word recently is without context, recently according to when? - Reference one (The Times article) is missing information like its author etc.
- Reference five Barbie.mattel.com/shop is a WP:VENDOR source which are frowned upon
- What makes Barbiedb.com a reliable source? There's no editorial information and its borderline WP:VENDOR / akin to eBay?
- Is there not an over-reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources? Where its not Barbiedb.com, its all almost Mattel Global Consumer, which is clearly related to the topic very close.
- None of the current sources are archived.
Unless I've missed a notability guideline that applies specifically to toys, its my understanding that the WP:RS and WP:MOS would frown upon primary sources, vendor sourcing and it may even border on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback! There are a couple of things I'm confused about. When you say "primary sources saying there's a doctor barbie etc. but no context.", what do you mean by context in this sense? Like, more information on why the doll exists, or what sort of context are you looking for? Same with when you say the article overall lacks context, I guess I'm not sure what sort of context you mean. I suppose I'm also confused about why Mattel would be a bad source when the material at hand is about types of careers Barbie has been portrayed as having (I do think "List of careers Barbie has been portrayed as having" would be a better title, fwiw), wouldn't it be good to directly cite the manufacturer? Antihistoriaster (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Antihistoriaster Well primary sources
are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved
. Mattel are the makers of Barbie so of course they will cover their own products. What has not been established is why the careers of Barbie are of notability beyond the fact they exist. That would require independent third party sources.
- Antihistoriaster Well primary sources
- In terms of context, just because something exists doesn't mean its notable to be written about, WP:NLIST says
Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.
- although you could argue that Barbie having STEM careers has received independent coverage, NLIST goes on to sayBecause the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
- In terms of context, just because something exists doesn't mean its notable to be written about, WP:NLIST says
- In a nutshell, Wikipedia does not allow content to be sourced from Vendors, and if a list or article only exists to be an index of all of the entries in a topic then it probably isn't notable. It's certainly not a FL in my eyes to be sourced almost entirely from Primary sources related to the topic, and certainly not Barbiedb.com which is not a reliable source. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding
!scope=col
to each header cell, e.g.!Year
becomes!scope=col | Year
. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use!scope=colgroup
instead. - Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.|1959
becomes!scope=row |1959
. If the cell spans multiple rows with a colspan, 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 18:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Member states of the International Labour Organization
- Nominator(s): Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a comprehensive overview of the member states of the ILO. I've been working on the list on and off for 18 months and believe it is probably now the most complete article on the member states of any international organisation on Wikipedia. This is my first FLC. It was nominated for peer review, but received no feedback. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment
- Per MOS:COLOR, a background colour alone cannot be used to indicate something, you need to add a symbol as well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- A different option might be to add a column with a green tick or yellow tick denoting founding member or invited, respectively...? Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- The ticks would have to be in different columns, as having ticks of different colours in a single column would also violate MOS:COLOR.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- That'll be a no, then. :) Thanks, again. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- The ticks would have to be in different columns, as having ticks of different colours in a single column would also violate MOS:COLOR.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- A different option might be to add a column with a green tick or yellow tick denoting founding member or invited, respectively...? Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead.
- Done.
- A few rows seem to be missing their rowscope- for example Republic of Vietnam and People's Democratic Republic of Yemen in the Former members section, and State of Palestine in the next section.
- Done. I've done a check of every row, throughout all the tables, it should be there for all now.
- 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 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for spotting these and brining to my attention. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "presently has 187 member states"- per MOS:CURRENTLY, change this to a statement along the lines of "as of August 2022"
- Done. Revised paragraphs one and two of the lede to accommodate.
- "The ILO was founded in 1919" - you only just said that
- Done.
- Third para of the lead is unsourced
- Only first sentence of the paragraph is not sourced elsewhere, added source for that sentence. Acceptable?
- "Prior participation as part of the Soviet Union." - this is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop. Check for other such cases.
- Done
- "citing the organisation's lack of support to anti-colonial liberation movements" - here the British spelling of organisation is used, but earlier the American spelling was used
- Done (technically, use here is Oxford English, but still a mistake in consistency nevertheless!)
- Image caption "Visit of Haile Selaisse of Ethiopia to the ILO, August 1924." is also not a complete sentence
- Done
- Nor is "Stamp issued by the GDR (East Germany) commemorating the 50th anniversary of the founding of the ILO."
- Done
- "in the northern Spring of 1990" - spring is not a proper noun so doesn't need a capital S
- Done
- Ref 116 gives a Harv error (the date is wrong)
- Done
- That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for spotting these! Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Kavyansh
- "Created in 1919" — Established would be more appropriate word, I think.
- "of the Versailles Treaty" — Well, the official name is "Treaty of Versailles". We should be using that.
- "Joseph Stalin (left) and Franklin Roosevelt (right)" — the WP:COMMONNAME is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
- Ref#52: "Shtylla 1967, pp. 385–6." should be 386 for consistency
- Suggesting to hyphenate ISBNs, using https://anticompositetools.toolforge.org/hyphenator/
That is all I have! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Kavyansh.Singh, all done. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- "The ILO's rules allow admission without membership in the UN, but the conditions to be satisfied in this case are more complex than for a UN member state." There are several unreferenced statements in the lead. Most do not require refs as they are summaries of the table, but this statement does need a ref.
- This information appeared in a note attached to the comment on Sudan's membership as prior to UN membership, but I have moved it to a more prominent location to make it clearer.
- The statement still needs a ref. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- The information was referenced already, however, I've expanded the text and added further references (to the ILO Constitution itself, plus another source).
- The statement still needs a ref. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- This information appeared in a note attached to the comment on Sudan's membership as prior to UN membership, but I have moved it to a more prominent location to make it clearer.
- A list of 187 items should use Template:Compact TOC for ease of searching, as in List of municipalities in Arkansas.
- Added.
- I do not think it is necessary to give full formal names, such as "Bolivia (Plurinational State of)", but that is a matter of personal preference.
- This is the way in which the ILO records the state's membership and this also matches the form in the UN member states article.
- "Founding members appear with "+" and a blue background; states invited to be founding members appear with * and a khaki background." I do not see that the distinction is justifified. They all joined on the same date. The fact that some were signatories to the Versailles Treaty is not relevant so far as I can see.
- The distinction is made by the ILO.
- Republic of Korea and Republic of Moldova. They should be listed alphabetically under Korea and Moldova, not Republic. Ditto United Republic of Tanzania.
- As above, this is how the names of these states are recorded in the ILO membership list and matches the UN member states article.
- I think that listing countries where readers will look for them should take priority over the ILO format, but it is not a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I could add "For X see Y" rows with links for the three cases of this?
- I think that listing countries where readers will look for them should take priority over the ILO format, but it is not a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- As above, this is how the names of these states are recorded in the ILO membership list and matches the UN member states article.
- Where a country has resumed membership, you should say readmitted, not admitted. Ditto with the heading in the withdrawals table. You say "Since establishment, 19 states have withdrawn from membership, although all were subsequently readmitted. You sometimes imply a distinction between a former member being admitted or readmitted, but this is unclear and confusing.
- Unfortunately, the sources are contradictory. For example, initially, the Baltic states were offered admission to the ILO in 1991, which they refused, demanding "readmission". I've used admission for all states which formally withdrew and rejoined, and readmission for states removed from membership, but did not formally withdraw.
- " After the Second World War, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) was admitted in 1951". Is there a reason you do not also mention the GDR here?
- The GDR is mentioned in note B. However, I've moved that text to follow the mention of FRG joining in 1951 to make it clearer.
- There are several cite errors showing up, particularly that the Frauman source is not used. For the script to show errors, see User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that, now removed. I don't see any other errors.
- I get error messages on the citations, but they are minor. The messages refer for further information to [[Category:CS1 maint: url-status]]. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for highlighting that; I wasn't able to see those, but have now been able to identify them individually. These seem to have been created through use of the autocitation function of the visual editor. All removed.
- I get error messages on the citations, but they are minor. The messages refer for further information to [[Category:CS1 maint: url-status]]. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dudley Miles Thank you for these comments, working on them. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dudley Miles: Responded to all your comments, many thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dudley Miles:Responded to your second round of comments, regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dudley Miles: Responded to all your comments, many thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that, now removed. I don't see any other errors.
- Support. My queries dealt with. I would delete the columns in the notes as two columns for three notes looks odd, but that is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Good point about the notes; I've fixed that. Thanks again for the comments. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Source review – Reference reliability looks okay throughout the article. Here are some (small) formatting issues I discovered:
- The link-checker tool] found a couple of orange highlighted items (in addition to it not liking the ILO site in general for some reason).
- In reference 8, the publisher (International Labour Organization) isn't italicized when it is in the other cites from that website. Ref 81 has the same issue. This should be made consistent throughout.
- Refs 81, 86, 147, 149 and 166 (x2) have hyphens in their titles that should be converted into en dashes for style.
- The Upham, Valticos and Wallace books also need en dashes for their year ranges in the titles.
- Refs 93 and 149 have all caps in the title that should be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Giants2008 thanks for these, I've corrected all of them but one. On the link checker tool, it registers the link to Hansard of the UK Parliament as dead, which is not the case. In that case, I've add an archive url to the footnote. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
List of accolades received by Drive My Car (film)
Drive My Car is a Japanese film that received numerous accolades from various outlets. This is my first FLC, and I believe this list meets the criteria. Any feedback is appreciated. Harushiga (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "while taking inspiration from "Scheherazade" and "Kino,"" - the comma should be outside the quote marks
- Done.
- "two other stories from it" =? "two other stories from the collection" would read more elegantly IMO
- Done.
- "The film had its world premiere [.....] on 11 July 2022, and was released in Japan on 20 August" - how is this possible? 20 August is still three weeks in the future
- On that note, if the film only had its world premiere 19 days ago, how can it have already been nominated for all these awards? Can we assume that you meant to write 11 July 2021?
- Yep, I meant to write 2021. Fixed.
- Was it really the entire country of Japan that was nominated for the Academy Award?
- Other tables for films nominated for Best International Feature Film also use the country in the recipient section, so I assume this to be the standard?
- That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by RunningTiger123
- In citations, if you choose to rewrite titles using italics instead of quotations (example: source 3,
"'Drive My Car' Cannes Review..."
to"'Drive My Car' Cannes Review..."
), the quotations can be removed ("Drive My Car Cannes Review..."
).- Done.
- Nikkan Sports Film Award is in the wrong spot alphabetically (move two spots down)
- Done.
- Check if the Newcomer of the Year award is directly tied to the film – it may only recognize Miura as an individual without citing the film in the nomination. This is supported by the citation saying the film won 8 awards when 9 are listed.
- The article directly cites Drive My Car for Miura's win. The award was given to multiple people, which is possibly why it was not counted towards the total.
- Source 53's reference has issues with italics
- Fixed.
- The New York Times should be marked with
|url-access=limited
- Done.
Overall, this is really good for a first nomination! RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Cowlibob
Initial thoughts
- That is a very short lead that wouldn't even meet the criteria for a DYK. Could this be expanded to mention more important awards/nominations that it has received.
- Expanded a bit.
- What makes AwardsWatch a reliable ref?
- I've seen it used in other featured accolade lists, such as The Tragedy of Macbeth and A Star Is Born. The owner and editor-in-chief, Erik Anderson, seems to be an expert on film-related topics as well. According to his profile on the website, he is a "Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic," and is a member of two critic groups (ICS and GALECA).
- Box Office Mojo is ok on its own, it doesn't need IMDb next to it and the same with Rotten Tomatoes in the refs. Cowlibob (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Birdienest81
This is a good list. The only thing I can think of is that it is missing three awards.
- AARP Movies for Grownups Awards (18 March 2022) - Won Foreign Language Film
- Palm Springs International Film Festival (7 January 2022) - Nominated for Best Foreign Language Film
- Santa Barbara International Film Festival (5 March 2022) - Tied for Outstanding Director of the Year Award with Paul Thomas Anderson for Licorice Pizza, Kenneth Branagh for Belfast, Jane Campion for The Power of the Dog, and Steven Spielberg for West Side Story
If you have time would you care for reviewing the 94th Academy Awards regarding its featured list nomination?
- --Birdienest81talk 04:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
List of international cricket centuries by Babar Azam
- Nominator(s): CreativeNorth (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because pretty much every other cricket century list is featured and I have worked to get it to the standard where I feel it could be featured as well. Thanks in advance. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- I am aware that names from the Indian subcontinent don't necessarily work the same as western names, so can you confirm that it's correct to refer to him as simply "Babar" per MOS:SURNAME?
- I'm pretty sure he is refered to as Babar. This tweet from the Pakistan Cricket Board seems to confirm this. Could be wrong though. CreativeNorth (talk)
- "Babar Azam is an Pakistani cricketer" => "Babar Azam is a Pakistani cricketer"
- CreativeNorth (talk) Changed.
- Full stop at the end of the Vaughan quote should be outside the quote marks
- Done
- "He has been named in the ICC Men's ODI Team of the Year on 3 occasions" => "He has been named in the ICC Men's ODI Team of the Year on three occasions"
- Done.
- "four different opponents at five cricket grounds" - I think just "grounds" would suffice, as he's not likely to have scored a century at a football ground
- Removed
- "His first century came in 2016 where he scored 120" - against.....?
- Changed to "His first century came in 2016 where he scored 120 against the West Indies"
- Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments @ChrisTheDude:, I think I have adressed them all, anything else? CreativeNorth (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Quick comment – This isn't a full source review from me as of yet, but ref 6 needs a publisher (ESPNcricinfo). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: Corrected. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- It's mostly fine, but I question why the second column of the tables (score) is being set as the "primary" column, rather than the "number" column, seeing as the score is not unique and does not "define" its row. --PresN 18:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- @PresN: I think have changed it so that the primary column is the number column. Can you have a look and confirm? Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
- Prose
- "Babar made his ODI debut in May 2015 against Zimababwe and scored 54 before being dismissed." Since this list is about Azam's centuries, I do not think this sentence is necessary and can be removed, with the subsequent sentence modified to mention his ODI debut.
- Done.
- Source review
- Publication dates are typically included in the references, per WP:CITEWEB. I suggest going through the news articles and adding this information if provided.
- I suggest archiving the websites
- Done, now all the websites have been archived and dates have been added where possible.
- Image review
- The link to the video has been terminated, and the account was terminated. How do we know that the image is not a copyright violation? This image might have to be removed.
- Use upright rather than px for images. See MOS:IMAGESIZE for more details
- I don't think that information is needed in the caption, as the image is introducing the person the list is talking about. I suggest something like, "Babar Azam, pictured in 20xx" (replace 20xx with the year the image was taken) or something similar.
- Done. I have changed the image to a different one used on Babar Azam, changed to upright, and used the suggested caption.
Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Z1720: I think I have addressed your comments, can you have a look and confirm please? Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
List of Music Bank Chart winners (2015)
- Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Jal11497 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
After taking the 2020 list to FL status and nominating the 2021 list (which will hopefully be closed soon), here is the 2015 list. This is the third Music bank related list that I am nominating for FL status. Looking forward to your comment. -- EN-Jungwon 14:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "actor and singer Park Bo-gum and Red Velvet member Irene became the host of the show" - host should be hosts (plural)
- "The single, along with "Lion Heart" by Girls' Generation ranked" - need a comma after Generation to close off the clause
- "The year began with "December, 2014 (The Winter's Tale)" by Exo" - doesn't read brilliantly, suggest "The first winner of the year was "December, 2014 (The Winter's Tale)" by Exo"
- "Super Junior's sub-unit Super Junior-D&E consisting of members Donghae and Eunhyuk won their first ever music show trophy" - source?
- "Girl group Red Velvet achieved their first music show win" - source?
- That's what I got on a quick first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude, all done. Thank you for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 18:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
List of FIA World Endurance champions
- Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This list is about all the drivers who have won a title in the FIA World Endurance Championship, an endurance auto racing championship that has been run since 2012. I have recently expanded and redone the list and I believe it meets the necessary requirements to become an FLC. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- Which version of English is this article in? I can see both "co-organised" (British) and "center" (American)
- In the World Endurance Drivers' Championship table (and subsequent tables), what does the "margin" column mean?
- Using the grey background in the World Endurance GT Drivers' Championship to indicate something contravenes MOS:COLOR. You also need to use a symbol.
- If the grey background relates to the season as a whole, how come in 2014 and 2016 there is one person with it and one without?
- In fact, how come some rows in that table have multiple people listed generally?
- Similar comments to the above on the World GT Manufacturers' Championship table
- "The championship is open to all manufacturers participating in the LMGTE categories, although only entered manufacturers are eligible for points" - what is an "entered manufacturer"?
- "The Trophy for LMP2 Pro/Am Drivers was introduced in the 2021 season for LMP2 driver crews featuring at least one bronze-rated driver" - what's a "bronze-rated driver"?
- Notes a and b are not complete sentences so don't need full stops
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Changes have been made based on the above points EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by RunningTiger123
6 LMP1 Private Drivers' Trophy winners
→six LMP1 Private Drivers' Trophy winners
(MOS:NUMERAL)in either of the Pro and Am categories
→in either the Pro and Am categories
A grey background...
– this is a complete sentence and should have a period in both locations it occurs.- Alexandre Imperatori sorts incorrectly
Signatech Alpine earned their second LMP2 teams trophy in the 2018–19 season,
– wrong punctuation at end?
Overall, this seems like a really solid list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- @RunningTiger123: Have made changes based on the above points EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
List of World Heritage Sites in Cambodia
- Nominator(s): Tone 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I know I still have to work on some lists of WHS in Europe, but I'll take a detour to Southeast Asia now. Cambodia has 3 WHS and 8 sites on the tentative list. Most of the sites are ancient cities and temples. The style is standard for WHS lists. The list for Italy, which is currently nominated, is seeing some support already (I know that list is massive, so this one is on the shorter side). Tone 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- "The site was immediately placed to the" => "The site was immediately placed on the"
- "was the site of the capitals of the Khmer Empire" - is capitals (plural) correct?
- "along a 800 m (2,600 ft) axis" => "along an 800 m (2,600 ft) axis"
- "Koh Ker was the capital of Khmer Empire" => "Koh Ker was the capital of the Khmer Empire"
- "king Jayavarman II declared the independence" => "king Jayavarman II declared independence"
- "and then often took to the nearby execution site of Choeung Ek" => "and then often taken to the nearby execution site of Choeung Ek"
- "The temple is decorated with Buddhist motives" => "The temple is decorated with Buddhist motifs"
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! Yes, capitals, plural. I added the word "different" to make it clearer. Tone 09:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Concerns by Z1720
Thanks for nominating this FLC. I want to raise my concern that the only publication used in this article is UNESCO. Since this list is selected by UNESCO, I think they would be considered a primary source and thus some secondary sources would be necessary to help verify the information. Furthermore, the description section has lots of information that can be verified in other sources that would be of a higher quality than UNESCO such as academic sources. I am not saying that the UNESCO references should be removed, but that secondary sources need to be added to this article. I am not posting this as an "oppose" because I want to give the nominator and others a chance to respond or make changes to the article. Please ping me if there are any questions or responses. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of the issue, it has been raised in some previous WHS nominations. There seems to be a rough consensus that the UNESCO is the reliable source that is sufficient here. Of course, most information could be sourced to other sources but the key thing is why some site is on the list (or tentative list), and this is always according to the UNESCO justification of outstanding universal value. I sometimes add third-party sources when the UNESCO one is lacking information, though. Tone 08:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- I am reading through the descriptions more closely, and the text is doing a great job describing the site, but it doesn't explicitly mention why it was picked to be a WHS. I suggest adding secondary sources for the descriptors and a brief, one sentence explanation that says something like "UNESCO chose to recognise this site because..."
- I also think that most, if not all, of the statements currently in the description section should be cited to higher-quality, academic sources. Statements like, "The Angkor area, one of the largest archaeological areas in the world," can probably be verified to a better source. It makes sense for the UNESCO data column to be cited to UNESCO, but I find it harder to support the descriptions using only one source. Z1720 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Citing each detail to academic sources is probably an overkill. The UNESCO sources are considered reliable and everything is there, so this should be sufficient. The justification is in the descriptions, if you look at the sources, this is under criteria i-x, when writing, I am always paying attention to that part and try to summarize it in the description. The description ideally always states what the site is and why it is important, so we don't need specifically state that "UNESCO chose to recognise this site because...". In the 20 or so previous nominations, the sources were always fine, so I think we can keep it as it is. Tone 14:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- "due to its remote location, is well preserved". The source says mainly due. The qualification is important and should be retained.
- "the concept of God-King, a government system that existed in Cambodia and Thailand until the 20th century". This wording is confusing. The source says "It remained a concept that was fundamental to the political and governance systems of Cambodia and Thailand until the beginning of the 20th century." The concept was fundamental to the system, but it could not be the system.
- " It was the site where king Jayavarman II declared independence from Java in 802, from the city of Mahendraparvata." Also confusing. Perhaps "It includes the city of Mahendraparvata, where king Jayavarman II declared independence from Java in 802." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed all, thanks! Tone 17:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments from BennyOnTheLoose
I'm happy to have my comments challenged. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Seems to me like the "Cultural heritage consists of monuments..." and "Natural features..." should mention that these are UNESCO definitions, but perhaps it's already obvious enough from the context and references.
- I suggest adding a few words to explain "tentative list" in the intro. (I know it's already explained in the Tenative list section.)
- Some refs are out of numerical order ([7][4][5])
- I am in sympathy with Z1720's comments about adding secondary sources. WP:SOURCE says "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources" (emphasis added by me). I guess there could be some incentive for countries to add to their tentative lists for reasons of tourism, so I think the argument for tentative lists being reliable is weaker than for the WHS list. However, I have no evidence for this, and if there's consensus that these type of articles can be based just on UNESCO/state sources then I'm not going to oppose on this point. (I see from the UNESCO site that "The sole responsibility for the content of each Tentative List lies with the State Party concerned")
- Thanks for checking! I fixed the refs order. As for the first two points, yes, it is kind of clear that this is UNESCO terminology, and stating what tentative lists are would be repetitive. As for the sources, it will always be either UNESCO or related ICOMOS sources that primarily state why something is of outstanding quality, and this is the relevant part. All other sources will be directly derived. Of course, we could source the fact that X temple was constructed in the Y century to a scholarly paper or a book, but this would be adding extra references to an already valid and reliable one, so it is redundant. Speaking of, yes, the tentative list sources are often of lesser quality than the main list ones, because several nominations are old and have not been updated. Yet still, this is the place where it is explained why the property is nominated. --Tone 19:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Thanks for replying to my points. I couldn't see any other issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Fernando Alonso
- Nominator(s): Radioactive39 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it seems like a very informative list about arguably both one of the best and most popular Formula One drivers of this sport. In my opinion, this list also gives a detailed overview about the driver's statistics and achievements (in this case: Grand Prix wins) throughout the driver's career. This could attract the attention of the readers, mainly because he is a popular Formula One driver, as I said before in my brief text. Radioactive39 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
*"currently competing for Alpine, who won 32 Formula One Grands Prix and two world championships." - is it Alsonso or Alpine that won this?
|
Further comments
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
*Piquet Jr image caption - ref should be after punctuation, not before
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- 'He won consecutive world championships in 2005 and 2006, winning each seven races in both seasons.' last part of the sentence doesn't make sense. Change to 'winning seven races in each season.'
- 'At the time, he became the first Spaniard to win a Formula One World Championship...' at the time would suggest there's been another F1 champ from Spain since his victories which I don't think there has. Suggest having the pain bit in a separate sentence from the two records that have been surpassed by Vettel, as it currently reads like all three have been surpassed when one hasn't.
- ' two of three records that had been previously held by joint-record seven-time world champion Michael Schumacher.' what's the other record held by Schumacher he didn't beat? Not sure we need to mention two out of three as it leaves the reader wondering what the third record is when it's not made implicit in the sentence what that record actually is.
- 'beating the previous record of Bruce McLaren and also making him the first Spaniard to win a Formula One Grand Prix.' also making him is redundant here, remove it and keep the remaining bit
- 'After being winless in 2004...' -> After a winless 2004 season,
- 'before
havinga disappointing 2009 season...' remove having - 'In all, Alonso has won a total of 32 races at 19 different circuits.' Again, not sure we need 'in all' here. Sentence works fine without it.
- ref 3, Sydney Morning Herald needs to be in italics as it's a publication. So change publisher to work in the cite template
- What makes maxf1.net a reliable source? I'm not convinced it is. Those refs should be easy to replace with BBC refs or the official F1 site
- ref 5 has autosport.com while ref 43 has Autosport. As Autosport is a publication, I think ref 5 should change to mimic ref 43.
- ref 33, what makes The Versed a reliable source? I think we can find a more reliable source from a news outlet to reference one of the most controversial races in F1 history.
- Likewise with ChicaneF1, I'm not convinced it's a reliable site. It can easily be replaced by BBC or the F1 site.
That's all from me. NapHit (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
List of The Book of Boba Fett characters
I am nominating this for featured list because for the last review I got a pass from the article reviewer and a pass from the source reviewer, but the article only got two votes, therefore not having enough to pass. I am sure this meets the criteria per the last review and am renominating the article in hopes of getting more votes. See last review here ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments from TRM
- Lead is a little brief for such a long article, per MOS:LEAD.
- "amount" -> "number"
- "that appear in the series are " include, rather than "are"? And why cherry pick these ones?
- If I do not cherry pick wont the list of name become quite lenghty
- "before in The Mandalorian and has also" overlinked.
- "back to life.[21][11] Rich " ref order.
- " ship Slave I back and" overlinked.
- "Ming-Na Wen portrays" ditto.
- Another editor and I in the last review agreed that it is ok to keep this link here in case someone reads just that section
- TV Insider's -> TV Insider's (check the markup here if it's confusing.
- "protagonist in the series The Mandalorian.[39] In" overlinked.
- "and Salvador Larocca for Marvel Comics" overlinked.
- "Comic Book Resources' Brenton Stewart" overlinked, and see formatting with the {{'s}} template here and elsewhere.
- "Lucas' film American Graffiti.[128][129][19]" ref order and "Lucas's".
- "two or less episodes in The Book of Boba Fett and are considered to play a significant part" fewer, not less, and considered by whom?
- "of ComicBook.com described" italics or not? Be consistent. And don't overlink.
- "comedian Amy Sedaris performs" overlinked.
- "Britt of Inverse said that " ditto.
- "the Star Wars: The Bad Batch series" ditto.
- "considered to be minor characters or make a significant cameo" considered by whom?
- "conversation with ComicBook.com, Rodriquez" unlink this dab.
- Plenty of spaced hyphens in the references, should be spaced en-dashes.
That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Everything has been fixed except for ones I put responses under and I'll get to the last one later. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Question where is the guideline that says I should change the hyphens to dashes in citations. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:DASH. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question where is the guideline that says I should change the hyphens to dashes in citations. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kaleeb18: - are you able to resolve the issues across this article and List of The Mandalorian characters? Another editor is attempting to (badly) merge all the content from this article into the other one and this one isn't likely to get promoted to FL if all of its content has been merged elsewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude Do you think the best way about this would be to remove the content from over there because it is not the list of The Book of Boba Fett characters, but it is the list of The Mandalorian characters. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- That would be my preference. I tried to sort out the other article earlier, but I didn't realise quite how much of a mess it was and I ran out of time before I had to go out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude Do you think the best way about this would be to remove the content from over there because it is not the list of The Book of Boba Fett characters, but it is the list of The Mandalorian characters. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I have finished all you have said except for the ones I had questions for. Also @ChrisTheDude: I have fixed the issue at the List of The Mandalorian characters. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
List of United States Military Academy First Captains
This is being nominated as featured list because it includes significant American military figures, as well as others who went on to successful civilian careers. Instituted in 1872, First Captain is a leadership position, the senior ranking member of the 4,400 Corps of Cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. (Not to be confused with the salaried Army enlisted rank of Captain (United States O-3).) Note that the PDF United States Military Academy sourcing for the list of names is only a chronological list of all who have held the position . — Maile (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
- After reading this list, I still have no idea what the first captain is. How are they selected and why? What is "overall performance" of the Corps – academic performance, military preparedness, general campus concerns? What is the "class agenda"? Is this basically a student body president? At most universities the students elect a leader of the student government who runs on a platform and works with the administration to ensure student-focused programs are funded, expanded, inclusive, and transparent. Does West Point have such a representative student government or how does this compare? You describe the brigade that the first captain leads as being divided into battallion and companies but don't answer the so-what: do each of them have a leader that the first captain herself directs or what?
- @Reywas92: @Hawkeye7: can answer this better than I can, but comparison to a student body president is not adequate. This is war college, and the First Captain is the Brigade Commander, with graduates often going directly into combat zones. In short, please see United States Military Academy#Rank and organization. War is their business, so any comparison to student body president at some civilian school, is not workable. All that academic stuff aside, the First Captain is charged with making sure they are prepared for war. But, as I said, Hawkeye7 can probably explain better. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Reywas92: @Hawkeye7: I found an answer, and a press release, and have posted the info in the first paragraph of Selection and Organization of the Cadet Corps The Academy selects the First Captain, as well as its other leadership positions. It doesn't give the details, but it most certainly was via an established criteria set by the Academy itself. Hope this helps explain somewhat. — Maile (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Reywas92: @Hawkeye7: can answer this better than I can, but comparison to a student body president is not adequate. This is war college, and the First Captain is the Brigade Commander, with graduates often going directly into combat zones. In short, please see United States Military Academy#Rank and organization. War is their business, so any comparison to student body president at some civilian school, is not workable. All that academic stuff aside, the First Captain is charged with making sure they are prepared for war. But, as I said, Hawkeye7 can probably explain better. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pratt should be recognized in the lead as the incumbent but her post-graduate majors are irrelevant here
- "Establishment of the university" section doesn't seem relevant, please tie in better to the article's subject or remove.
- I think it provides background. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I completely agree on the background info, which is why I put it here. Without that section, non-Americans are not likely to know the why and how of the institution's establishment. And I think it's really important to note when the first women were allowed into the academy. That was a really big deal in American history. It also provides the background as to why no women were named First Captain until 1990. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you're not using US-style MDY dates, a comma doesn't ever belong between a month a year.
- "Global influence" is a pretty vague header. Of course top military brass have a global influence, but how does that mean this position has global influence? It's great to note that high achievers at the military academies are often high achievers in the military and that many former officeholders later become generals, but there should be a bit more tying of them together than details like what Pershing did.
- Headings are normally vague. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Removal of "global" still ignores the rest of the comment. This shows that a number of have had significant roles decades after being FC, but not the "influence" of the position itself. Reywas92Talk 18:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The position itself has little influence per se outside the Corps of Cadet, where it is a highly-sought after honour among highly competitive people. (This is particularly notable nowadays as the corps is very large, so they tend to be over-achievers). However: the appointment marks the cadet as a likely candidate for future greatness, and this is seen by the high proportion who achieve general officer rank. I created the list because it kept cropping up in biographies. It is also not unknown for First Captains to become patrons of other First Captains, which is important because the US Army runs on a system of patronage. In particular, Pershing took an interest in the careers of other First Captains, hence the run of them as his successors. Graduates are normally ranked on graduation, but this refers to academics, whereas the position of First Captain is based on scholarship, sportsmanship and leadership. As the quote in the article indicates, by first year the cadets have been assessed for a long time. It is not unusual though for them to also rank high in the class, often first like MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Pershing, MacArthur, Malin Craig and William Westmoreland all served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army" helps with that, but it's missing Summerall, Clark, and Rogers as listing in the table.
- Are there any other notes about the first captains' actual service beyond the examples in "Interrupted terms"?
- "All Ameican" typo
- "WW I, WW II" isn't spaced
- Salzman is the only "Brigadier-General" with a hyphen, please check for consistency in the formatting of these comments in general.
- Lots of inconsistency of U.S. vs. US
- Inconsisency like a simple "Rhodes scholar" for Morales and a wordier "Recipient of a post-graduate Marshall Scholarship" and then "Rhodes scholar scheduled to attend the University of Oxford" that's redundant since Rhodes scholars by definition attend Oxford.
- With the comments column, there is value in recognizing their later achievements and major positions, but there shouldn't be comments merely for the sake of being comments for each one. Lots of people get an "MBA from Harvard Business School" or "MBA degree from Stanford Graduate School of Business" (another inconsistency with "degree"!) and that's just not as relevant here.
- Why is "who retired three times" meaningful? Retired from what?
- I'm really confused why the comment for Robert S. Brown is "AKA Capt. Robert (“Todd”) Sloan Brown", what does this add to spell out his middle name?
- West Point tends to have similarly-named relatives also attending the academy, especially in the cases of fathers and sons. This one has name variations from source to source. I wanted the reader to understand that this is the same individual who, for reasons unknown, used alternate variations of his name in different time periods. As a cadet, he was listed as Robert S. Brown. But he wrote a journal for West Point under the name Todd S. Brown. And depending upon the published editon of that journal, his name is listed both ways. Sometimes as Robert (“Todd”) Sloan Brown. No explanation of why. It's confusing, but the only way I could indicate they are one and the same person. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why is The class the stars fell on a relevant see also?
There's potential here but there's a way to go, namely that it needs more than "these people who did things after attending USMA held a leadership position at USMA". Back to the student body president question – student body president is *not* a Wikipedia notable position! This being a service academy and the success of many alumni can justify this article, but it doesn't really show it. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- We'll keep working at it. It would be WP:OR to find their student records while at the academy. Which the academy would not give us access to, even if Wikipedia had no dictate against that. We can only go by existing public information. What makes them notable, is what they achieved after the academy. The whole point here is that a leadership at the academy gave them the skills to achieve notability otherwise.
- @Hawkeye7: Do you have time to eyeball the Comments column, and help add pertinent info beginning around 1900-15, if lacking? I've started to add brief blurbs about their military careers. Once we get into the 21st century, cadets serve out their required post-cadet military service, and then go into financially successful careers in the private sector. I think it's important to note that. — Maile (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
✓@Hawkeye7: The ball is in your court now. I've given this all I can find, and I think the format and general information is what it ought to be. If you think you can improve on it, then full steam ahead. My intent with the notes column, has been to give a little blurb about the post-West Point path the First Captains took. Overall, that column tells an incredible story of the calibre of people West Point chose for that resposibiliy. @Reywas92: if this works for you, fine. If it doesn't, ah well, you hit the boards running with an Oppose - but overall, you raised some really valid points that led to much improvement and clarity therein. — Maile (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7 and Reywas92: FYI - I stepped back from this a couple of days and then read it cold. Coming back to it, I do believe anyone who never before heard of West Point, needed a little more information as to why this is such a big deal. Especially if this is being read by non-Americans. I added a little paragraph at the top of the "Background" to explain its attachment to the US Department of Defense, and how requests for enrollment are handled. I think the application process alone might make the Army, Navy and Air Force academies a little unique. I also expanded the lead section. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment
- "Holland is one of only seven women cadets...." - per MOS:SURNAME, individuals should not be referred to by their forename in this way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed - Nice catch there. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hasn't been changed as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed - Nice catch there. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - 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. --Pres<sp an style="color:blue">N 19:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done*@PresN: If I understand, you are simply talking about the one line right below |class=. If that's what you meant, thanks for reminding me - taken care of. If you meant something else, please let me know. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing
FYI for @Hawkeye7: and also whoever does the sourcing review. YouTube is not necessarily a reliable source. But per WP:RSE regarding that matter, "official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed". First captain Austin C. Welch - I just linked him to a YouTube interview video from WCIU-TV in Chicago. The interview was conducted in Dec 2014, the first half of the 2014-2015 academic year. Wikipedia's YouTube guidelines might be a little out of date, inasmuch TV stations and other legitimate entities use YouTube as an outlet. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Kavyansh
- "The First Captain is responsible for the overall performance of the 4,400-strong Corps of Cadets" — Exactly 4400, or approximately?
- "or to the President or Vice President of the United States" — Review MOS:JOBTITLE
- "were John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur and William Westmoreland." — We'd have an Oxford comma in the general American English usage
- Why is first women started from a new para?
- Open to suggestions on this, as it was part of an expansion of the lead. Do you think it should be combined with the paragraph above it? If so, that's fine with me. Originally, Hawkeye7 had a paragraph about the latest woman First Captain Holland Pratt. While expanding the lead in general, I just included the other women, as Pratt is the latest, but not necessarily the most significant of women First Captains. I do believe that inclusion of women in the position have been so new - and so few - that they should be mentioned in the lead.— Maile (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, continuing it in the previous para would be better, in my opinion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed — Maile (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- "The USMA is" — define the the prose the full form of USMA
- "to US congressional representatives and senators, as well as to the US President and Vice President" — Review MOS:JOBTITLE, and do we have to repeat US that many times?
- "USMA was founded in 1802, through the Military Peace Establishment Act signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson." — This should have been told before describing what USMA does.
- "on 7 October 1975" — Do we have to be this precise. Will it matter to the reader if we just say 1975?
- Yes, it follows from our prime objective, which is to gather knowledge. Also, it someone trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not big deal for me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- "the current Commandant of cadets" — our article capitalizes 'C' in 'cadets'
- " John J. Pershing, was 1886 First Captain" — Why comma?
- "In 1916, he led 10,000 men" — I may be nitpicky, but exactly 10,000 or, most probably, approximately?
- With such figures, it is always understood that rounding occurs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- But it is always better to specify. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Do we need that background info about Pershing?
- The point is the importance of the officer and future career. First Captain can be seen as a prophecy of future significance, but it has often been a self-fulfilling prophecy.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- But why is it important to the reader that he taught in a school in Missouri? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
More to come. The article might benefit from a copy-editing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Pershing, MacArthur, Malin Craig, William Westmoreland and Bernard W. Rogers" — Oxford comma?
- "as Chief of Staff of the United States Army" — add the definite article, and lowercase 'c'
- "the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force" — lowercase 'c'
- "He was court martialed" — our article hyphenates, it. I'm not sure which one is correct, though.
- "There were some unusual cases" — we can start without specifying thin, in Wikipedia's voice.
- "First captains 1872–present" — Add "1872–present" inside parenthesis.
- "List of United States Military Academy first captains of the cadets" — The table caption is repeating the nearby heading. Shift it inside {{Sronly}}
- "Comments/post-cadet careers" could be "Notes"
- Okay, firstly, 'Consistency is the key'. Now, how are we naming the first captains? There is a conflict here. We have "Amos A. Jordon Jr.", but "Carl Columbus Hinkle Jr" (without dot) v. "Ralph P. Swofford Jr.". We have our article calling him "Pete Dawkins", but we have "Peter M. Dawkins" (with middle name). Then why not same for Westmoreland?
- Per WP:COMMONNAME. Names are as they appear on the roll. The MOS rejects the concept of consistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- If Ref#3 is repeated in almost all the reference cells, why not just put it in the head of the "Sources" column and not repeat it multiple times?
- The references need to be consistently formatted. We have no retrieval dated for many web sources. What makes https://generals.dk/ a WP:RS? "Washington Post" should be "The Washington Post". Why is https://valor.militarytimes.com/ a RS? "Second page can be viewed at Newspapers.com/clip/105068924/horowitz/" — should be a link than bare url. Ref#92 needs a retrieval date. Ref#132 has a page number, why do we not have it for Ref#136 and many others? Many source titles, which are in ALL CAPS, needs to be in title case. All these sourcing issues are really just over a quick read.
That is it on a quick read. I am not convinced by the sourcing (formatting, and reliability for few as well). Thus I would not support until a source review has been passed. Currently, I'm leaning oppose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: I'm going to kick this sourcing issue over to you. With the exception of the original PDF source you used to create the list, I think I did most of the sourcing, so it takes a second pair of eyes address the above-mentioned issue. Can you follow through on this item, please? — Maile (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Kavyansh.Singh, I just looked at this one and I'm a little surprised that it seems to be stalled, because both nominators have a lot of experience with these things and are happy to work with reviewers. I see that they requested and received that copyediting you asked for (from Chris_the_speller, a very experienced copyeditor, in August). If one of the experienced source reviewers can work with them and give them a pass, and if they pass my review (which is pretty standardized, I think you've seen what I do), then how close would they be to getting your support? I don't want to step on your toes here ... if there's something that's just not working for you, please tell me so that I can take a look before I do my review. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dank: thank you for your words above. I'd like to say few things. First of all, I've always considered Kavyansh.Singh one of the easiest editors to work with in recent times. He's been very helpful to me personally. I guess I'm surprised that he came out with a leaning oppose before we had a chance to remedy the issues he brought up. As for other one previous, valid questions that Hawkeye7 and I immediately resolved - and the opposer never returned. Eh ... Hawkeye and I did our best with what we were asked about. I haven't heard from Hawkeye since his last posting above - not here, or either of our talk pages. I wouldn't blame him if he threw in the towel, and just got on with other priorities. If you and Kavyansh.Singh want to resuscitate the review, I'll do what I can. Even if Hawkeye never comes back ... I'm willing. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry guys, I like to wait for two supports or one month before I review in general, whichever comes first, but I missed this one. Btw ... we don't have a lot of reviewers, and the ones we do have tend to stick with formats and subject areas that they already know ... it can take many months sometimes to get a list promoted (for everyone, it's not just Milhist stuff ... FLC delegates, me, everyone has trouble if it's not sports or entertainment or something else reviewers have already seen 10 of). It would really help the Milhist nominations if we could get a regular volunteer from Milhist helping out. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! I reviewed the list and assessed how far is it from meeting the criteria. This one had quite a few issues, and that is why I was leaning oppose. The prose looks better, and the list seems to have been improved. The main reason for me to oppose was the sources, but @Dank, if you are willing to give this one a closer look at the prose, I can provide a thorough source review, and I think it'll be good to go. @Maile66, I rarely oppose the nominations, mostly because it is discouraging for the nominators. I was leaning oppose due to aforementioned source reliability/formatting issues. I'm now happy to strike my declaration and work on this one! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry guys, I like to wait for two supports or one month before I review in general, whichever comes first, but I missed this one. Btw ... we don't have a lot of reviewers, and the ones we do have tend to stick with formats and subject areas that they already know ... it can take many months sometimes to get a list promoted (for everyone, it's not just Milhist stuff ... FLC delegates, me, everyone has trouble if it's not sports or entertainment or something else reviewers have already seen 10 of). It would really help the Milhist nominations if we could get a regular volunteer from Milhist helping out. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Dank
- Well, I got motivated and got this done tonight.
- Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
- I'm going to punt sourcing reliability over to whoever does the source review. The only thing I noticed was: retrieval dates sometimes appear and sometimes not for newspapers.com; your source reviewer may ask for consistency on this.
- Reilly McGinnis Rudolph: not sure if there's a problem in the sort order here or not, take a quick look at that. It's sorting under "M" currently, so I'd usually expect a hyphen for that, but the notes say "she took her husband's name of Rudolph upon marriage", so maybe not.
- There's not a lot you can do about this, but I haven't found any consistency at all in requirements across all of en-wp for how to phrase descriptions of people in a notes column ... even the question of whether sentences need to have periods/full stops (such as "A monument to him was erected at Tybee by his former Military Academy classmates", which doesn't have one). Some reviewers care about this stuff. The argument could be made that you could be more consistent, but I don't like to criticize something when I know that everyone is inconsistent on this, to one degree or another.
- I agree, and I was conflicted as I went through it. Hawkeye7 I'm open to suggestions on this one. However odd this might look, I didn't want to end the notes blurb with a full stop - to my way of thinking, that's incorrect. On the other hand, some of those comments were separate issues and needed some kind of a stop in there. — Maile (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- "China-Burma-Indian Theater of Operations 1943": Our article is at China Burma India Theater (i.e. no hyphens). And, you're linking the second occurrence rather than the first.
- "medals/awards": See WP:SLASH.
- "With no prior military background, Knight succeeded by participating in every activity offered, and never giving up. His philosophy was that military training is an enhancement of a person's existing character": That sounds like it came straight out of some brochure.
- "Center,Molesworth England": Missing space and comma
- Sometimes you give nicknames ("Fritz", "Todd"), sometimes not; sometimes in the names column, sometimes not; sometimes with "AKA" or "aka" (unlinked, undefined), sometimes not. Consistency please.
- "Chief of Counter-Intelligence": Counterintelligence, I think
- There's some inconsistency in what gets mentioned in the notes column. Some have positions listed that are certainly unrelated to their military career (such as "Current President and CEO of PWSC", which apparently is the "leader in new home warranty products"). Some have boring details: "Van de Wall enrolled in West Point while serving in the ROTC". I don't want to micromanage here, but don't be shocked if reviewers ask for a bit more consistency.
- Noted, and I knew it when I did it - just unsure how to handle that. I didn't want to leave the notes column blank for anyone. After all, they were the cream of the academy crop, and should have achieved something afterwards. While some of them continued in the military to one level or another, some pursued higher educations and went into commercial enterprise where they became upper management and/or made a lot of money. — Maile (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- "There have been several firsts among the first captains.": What kind of firsts? I get that it can be a losing game trying to find some language concerning gender and ethnicity that makes everyone happy in 2022 ... still, it feels like this goes too far in trying to avoid saying anything. Even borrowing "During the academy's first 174 years, only men were admitted." from the text below the lead would work better as the first sentence in this paragraph, I think.
- The first image needs an alt caption.
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on both sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
- 3b. Sourcing: see above.
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
- 6. It is stable.
- - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Kavyansh, and great work. Great edits, Hawkeye.
I'll take another look when the source review is done and passed.- Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC) - Support. Great work, guys. (Note that I punted the sourcing issues on this one ... I'm confident you guys can work it out.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Source review
- Ref#1 [3] — Per WP:RS/P#History, " unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy ..."
- ""John K. Tien | Homeland Security"." — Per the source, the title just appears to be "John K. Tien". Same with Ref#6, we don not need the text after '|' in the title. Automatic citation maker might be responsible for this. Please check this in various other references as well, I am not repeating this issue again, though it exists in other references as well.
- Ref#7: We do no need both govinfo.gov and US Government Publishing Office. Just the publisher will work
- Ref#8: The White House should be replaced with whitehouse.gov as the publisher.
- Ref#9: Typo in the title?
- Be consistent whether you have "United States Military Academy West Point", "West Point Public Affairs", or "www.westpoint.edu"; all point to the same site. Currently we have inconsistency.
- What does '21-21' signify in Ref#12
- We have "United States Congress", "The United States Army", but also "US Army Center of Military History", "US Army Center of Military History". What is the rationale behind abbreviating or spelling the United States?
- Just following the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well, internal consistency within the article is more important. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just following the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ref#23: Quite within quotes should be single quotation marks. Publisher, i.e. the Library of Congress should not be italicized.
- Inconsistency as few publisher/websites are wikilinked, few are not.
- Why is American Rhetoric a RS. And anyways, we can definitely find a better source for directly quoting the speech. Sample: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44641138
- Inconsistency: "University of Chicago" and "penelope.uchicago.edu"
- @Hawkeye7: a little advice need here. On these, I think I just used the Edit Window toolbar template maker on each one. However, "penelope.uchicago.edu", as well a "Cullums_Register", are databases of the University of Chicago. I think they are the same database, but differ by how the Edit Window toolbar read them. Nevertheless they come from the University of Chicago. How should we standardize these? — Maile (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why is HMdb.org (Historical Marker Database) a RS?
- Inconsistency: Some sources have location, some don't have.
- The MOS says that newspapers should have a location only if it is not evident from the name of the paper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Even by that logic, it is not consistently applied. The Evening Sun including many do not have location, and the name does not suggest where it is published. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- The MOS says that newspapers should have a location only if it is not evident from the name of the paper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- www.ncpc.gov should really be National Capital Planning Commission; fws.gov should be United States Fish and Wildlife Service
- Ref#57: "p. 1}. Retrieved 26" — stray }
- Just curious: Why is The Dunn County News notable enough to redlink?
- Why is biography.com a RS? And we can easily get a lot of scholarl work on General MacArthur. Hawkeye took it to FA level, they much have some scholar source to support the fact.
- Ref#89: Check the publisher
- AFI is the website for the American Film Institute, which following a 1965 mandate from President LBJ to preserve to the legacy of American film heritage, was established and supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Ford Foundation. It is known as the AFI, and the link was from its catalog. In this instance, it verifies that Major Raymond G. Moses was an advisor on the film about West Point. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ref#119: Fix the UPPERCASE in the title
50% of the sources done. More to come a day or two later. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Great! Continuing:
- Inconsistency — Ref#120: "United States Air Force"; Ref#123: "US Air Force"
- Ref#127 seems to be missing various details, like author ("Sorley, Lewis"), Publishing date ("14 Jul. 2022"). Just check the "Cite" link on the site. Also, the website parameter should be replaced by publisher "Encyclopedia Britannica"
- Why is Dinoto Funeral Home a RD?
- Ref#132: http://www.mainegavemany.com/index.html does not appear to be an official cite. Why is it RS?
- Ref#133: "Washington Post" should be The Washington Post. And what is "No." signifying in the reference?
- Military Times is sometimes italicized, sometimes not. Consistency is the key.
- Ref#145: check the title. And 'bioguide.congress.gov' should be 'United States Congress' or 'US Congress', whichever you choose for internal consistency in the article
- Ref#147: 'Truman Library' should be 'Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum'
- Ref#151: 'www.bradwellinstitute.org' should be 'Bradwell Institute'
- Why is "For What They Gave on Saturday Afternoon" a RS?
- Ref#164: Now Facebook definitely is not a RS.
- Ref#165: Why is this public records database reliable enough to be in a FL, "believe to be the best lists on the English Wikipedia"
- Ref#166: has both 'www.army.mil' and 'US Army'
- Removed www.army.mil
- Ref#167: Missing Retrieved date.
- Ref#170: Why is [4] a RS?
- Ref#173: Linkedin definitely not a RS.
- Ref#174: 'Graduates, United States Military Academy Association of' is not the author.
- Ref#186: Check formatting
- Ref#209: Why is this a RS?
- Ref#220: Check formatting
- Kavyansh.Singh having removed 209, I believe this one must be 219. However, I see nothing odd about the formatting of the source on either 219 or 220. What am I missing? — Maile (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Maile and Hawkeye, can you please take another thorough look at the reference formatting and reliability. The issues I have picked are really not difficult to find; anyone with a good grasp of MOS and policy can figure these out, you both definitely could have done that. I'll take another look whenever the list is ready. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for this, and I will have another look through the sources. It's kind of on my head, because I might have done most of the sourcing. I vaguely remember grasping at straws on some of it, just so we would not have a non-sourced entry. That being the case, @Hawkeye7: maybe you ought to do a real eagle-eye look though. I'll have another look also, but another set of eyes won't hurt. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Coldplay videography
- Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Good afternoon, this is my first FL nomination since the List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay. It's the listings of the band's visual work, as their music videos section on Coldplay discography was getting way too big. All old sources were checked, corrected and replaced. Please feel free to note any detail I might have forgotten.
Comments from ChrisTheDude
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
*"appearing on many television shows throughout their career as well" - this should probably be "as well as appearing on many television shows throughout their career". However, the Television section further only down only lists four appearances. Four is not "many"
|
Further comments from ChrisTheDude
- I found it very hard to believe that Coldplay have only appeared on TV seven times in a career spanning more than 20 years, and needless to say they haven't. Here for example is them appearing on The Graham Norton Show in 2021, here is them appearing on the same show in 2016, here they are on it yet again (unsure of year), here they are on The Voice in 2021, here they are on The Tonight Show in 2021. I bet there are dozens more. Were you intending this section to only include occasions when they did more than just perform one song? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes! I want to make a List of Live Performances page in the future, but that is going to take A LOT of work. Coldplay has performed live an insane amount of times, Everyday Life was their least promoted era and you can still find a lot of stuff, including the broadcast in Jordan (that one was included in Videography due to being a film, and their films are easier to track). GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- In that case maybe change the section header to something like "Major television appearances" or "notable television appearances" or something like that, as currently it does kinda imply that these are literally the only times Coldplay have appeared on TV...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I changed it to "Television appearances", in contrast with "Television performances". Anything else? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- In that case maybe change the section header to something like "Major television appearances" or "notable television appearances" or something like that, as currently it does kinda imply that these are literally the only times Coldplay have appeared on TV...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Pamzeis
Hopefully, I will not screw this up
- "released 64 music videos, four video albums and four films," — consistency is needed per MOS:NUM
- "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". The guidelines don't prohibit me from writing like I did. In fact, it's the most used way I have seen around discography and award pages.
- "appearing on multiple television shows throughout their career as well" — while I understand what this bit is trying to say, it feels quite awkward to me. Can it be reworded?
- I've tried before, nothing good so far.
- ""In My Place" and "The Scientist", which was nominated" — which one was nominated?
- Solved. It's "The Scientist".
- "campaign was then completed" — removed then as redundant
- Solved.
- "anticipation for their fourth album Viva la Vida" — comma after album
- Solved.
- "two versions of "Viva la Vida" available" — I think more context is needed for what "Viva La Vida" is, as I thought it was the album before clicking on the link
- Album titles are in italic and song titles are in quotes, I think that's very much clear already.
- "The record also spawned" — ...what is "the record" referring to?
- "The record" is always referring to the album last mentioned. The Mylo Xyloto record spawned "Princess of China" and "Hurts Like Heaven".
- "an interactive project" — can you clarify whether it's just the last one or all of them or something?
- Solved.
- "(1979) which had its final" — comma before which
- Solved.
- "following it with" — is "it" the song or the album?
- I wrote that thinking about the song, but it also applies to the AHFOD album since "Adventure of a Lifetime" is the only video released prior to 4 December 2015.
- "The record's marketing campaign" — what is "the record"?
- "The record" is always referring to the album last mentioned. The A Head Full of Dreams record had its campaign finished with "A Head Full of Dreams" and "Everglow".
- "Everyday Life (2019) had six music videos" — kinda awkward
- Solved.
- Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works (such as albums, films or television shows) should be italicised in citations
- I'm pretty sure all of them are in this list. --GustavoCza (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This nomination has been open for three months without a single support vote; @ChrisTheDude and Pamzeis: are either of you willing to support or oppose? --PresN 01:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I totally forgot about this one. Took another look and now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Nominations for removal
List of Moonlight episodes
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the episode list was merged to the main article and this article is now a redirect. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Another_WP:FL_One-Season List of Episodes That Should Be Merged... Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support should never have been split off per MOS:TVSPLIT. One season's worth of episode is not enough to justify a separate list of episodes article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support delisting — Pretty sure an implicit criteria for an FL is that the page has to exist on its own, and I don't see this merge being undone. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support. There was a time when single-season shows had separate episode lists, such as List of Highlander: The Raven episodes which was a FL at one point, but times have changed. I agree that the separate list is not necessary, and it is only 16 episodes so it is not an amount that would overwhelm the article. It would likely be more beneficial for readers anyway to include this information on the show article rather than having them navigate to separate list just for a 16-episode season. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson
- Notified: WikiProject Michael Jackson, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, original nominator: User:Pyrrhus16, notable contributors to the article: User:Reelcase, User:Bobimj, User:The Rambling Man and User talk:Popcornfud
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I find it hard to believe that we consider this the best in what we have to offer when it comes to lists. Although the topic is certainly worthy there are numerous issues such as:
- choice of colours used to highlight the songs are not WP:ACCESSIBLE (HELP:COLOR)
- some songs are tagged with 1993 deposition but this isn't mentioned in the prose or explained anywhere
- Some songs are highlighted as both deposition and registered with the US copright office - so what? What's the relevance.
- Quality of referencing isn't always strong for example Discogs is used which is unreliable as its user generated, there's bare references prone to LinkRot, there's no archiving of the sources
- I find it hard to believe that all of the "facts" about the songs are included in the source(s) such as alternative names for the songs, the specific details of how complete the songs are or are not, who sings what verse etc.
- At least one non-sourced entry
- Lots speculation such as "A demo version/mono acetate is known to exist" and "Original full-length demo of "I Am A Loser" leaked onto the internet in September 2013"
The list goes on. Its full of speculation, poorly sourced and possibly synthesised material, no navigational aids like anchors to jump to different parts of the list by letter and poor prose such as "This list, however, only documents the songs explicitly cited as unreleased and therefore does not contain every unreleased Jackson song registered with such bodies"
which makes no sense.
>> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist. All the speculation and poor sourcing means this is not FA-worthy. Popcornfud (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wait a month. If all of these issues are resolvable, and they are, what is the point of delisting? Why not just fix the existing issues? Wouldn’t delisting be too much of an intrusive next steps for such minor issues? There are some claims above that are just not true. There is no synthesized material, the sources are not that bad and also easily replaceable, delisting is such an extreme and awkward next step when no one has even attempted to fix the issues. Fix the issues, it really is that simple. If while fixing the issues it’s concluded that they for whatever reason can’t be fixed, then consider delisting. I will never understand why editors will point out fixable issues and decide to take the most extreme step, than just spending time to fix it. It doesn’t make sense.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you disagree about my assessment of the sourcing and and synthesis of material. Had I access to the publications (the books) I would have gone through and verified all of the claims in this article. For example some of the songs listed as sourced from Michael Jackson: For the Record seem to have lots of detailed information available but other times its just the song and the writers. That aside, layout and accessibility do not meet the standards of FL. There are some really poor sources here like onmymjfootsteps which half the content is dead and is a fansite. There's no evidence as to who the owner Rachel or, or what her credentials are that mean this website is reliable. The inclusion of the 1993 deposition isn't even mentioned in the lead or what the significance of the songs mentioned here were. There are lots of unsourced or unverified claims like
Rough vocal demo known to exist.
for the song "Bomb Detonation". "Get Your Weight Off of Me" has a tonne of information about it that isn't in the source, speculation about other names of the song (WP:FANCRUFT) etc, not forgetting to mention its a retail source. I could go on but there's a lot of issues meaning the article requires a complete re-write. The reason I am requesting a de-list is that it was previously listed for delisting and some of these issues have prevailed without being addressed. In its current format, it would not pass and ascend to FL status without an entire copy edit and re-write. Its also telling that none of the other articles in the Category:Lists of unreleased songs by recording artists category are FL. It would be worrying to keep this as an FL in its current state as it sets the standard for other similar articles and its a waste of everyone's time if other unreleased songs lists got nominated because they copied this style and format which clearly isn't FL standards. You are saying you don't understand why editors spend time pointing out fixable issues - this is akin to saying there's no point having a delisting process. FLs need to be maintained not just high quality once to pass the review. Its also about the knock on impact and how they end up being viewed by the wider editor base. Sorry you disagree with my assessment but I do think its harmful more than anything to wider quality standards across these types of articles to keep this an FL even if it could be fixed (we can disagree on the size of the job). >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for your reply. I want to make clear that I agree in its current form the article does not meet FA. No question about that. I do have access to some of the sources. However, all I am saying is that if I am wearing a nice shirt and it get food stain on it, I wouldn’t just throw it away. I would try to wash it to get the stain out. Then if I could not get the stain out, then consider throwing it away or replacing it. The article needs work. No question. I would like to see an effort put forth in fixing the issues first. If not fixed in a month, I’ll support downgrading. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can get behind that. Tbf if it had improved significantly since the last nomination I wouldn't have bothered nominating. It is an issue with any FA or FL article tbh. There are occasions where the original nominator doesn't continue monitoring it or the community allows it to fall into disrepair. Its compromise I'd support if someone wants to have a go at improving it but after a month, if it appears that no one cares enough then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I want to make clear that I agree in its current form the article does not meet FA. No question about that. I do have access to some of the sources. However, all I am saying is that if I am wearing a nice shirt and it get food stain on it, I wouldn’t just throw it away. I would try to wash it to get the stain out. Then if I could not get the stain out, then consider throwing it away or replacing it. The article needs work. No question. I would like to see an effort put forth in fixing the issues first. If not fixed in a month, I’ll support downgrading. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you disagree about my assessment of the sourcing and and synthesis of material. Had I access to the publications (the books) I would have gone through and verified all of the claims in this article. For example some of the songs listed as sourced from Michael Jackson: For the Record seem to have lots of detailed information available but other times its just the song and the writers. That aside, layout and accessibility do not meet the standards of FL. There are some really poor sources here like onmymjfootsteps which half the content is dead and is a fansite. There's no evidence as to who the owner Rachel or, or what her credentials are that mean this website is reliable. The inclusion of the 1993 deposition isn't even mentioned in the lead or what the significance of the songs mentioned here were. There are lots of unsourced or unverified claims like
Well, it's been two months, and most of the edits since then have been editors adding more unsourced statements. @TruthGuardians: do you plan on working on this list? If not, then I think this will need to be delisted. --PresN 02:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for tagging me in this. I completely forgotten all about it. It can be delisted for now. I can work on it in its delisted state then request re-list TruthGuardians (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock
- Notified: Jamie jca, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Awards
I've been working hard to update this list's formatting, but there are some major gaps in sourcing, and it does not appear to cover all awards the show received. Therefore, the list currently fails FLCR 3a and 3b. I'm still working on this and I'd like to get this back to an FL-appropriate state, but since I can't guarantee that in a reasonable amount of time, I feel I should nominate the list for removal. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I really don't think this should be demoted that easily. I found a website covering all the Emmy Awards that the show was nominated for from the official Television Academy website. [5] Birdienest81talk 09:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Emmys aren't hard, but a quick scroll through IMDb's awards page shows there are a lot of awards that should be added. Even for the currently included awards, many later years are missing. The work to source all of those will take time, which is why I'm starting this nomination in case I can't find sources quickly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@RunningTiger123: Do you plan on returning to this list? I see you haven't edited it since this nomination, and while no one has really commented on this nomination, if there are major issues and no editing after months then it should be delisted. --PresN 01:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't have as much time to edit at this time of the year, and I'm focused more on other articles right now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I may try to attempt to salvage the list, probably starting tonight or latest Wednesday. I am trying to work on getting the 50th, 54th, 55th, 57th Oscars lists ready for FLC, but I don't play on submitting those until maybe 2024 or 2025. Also, may do work attempting to get 2020 World Series and/or Super Bowl LVI to GA status. Bear in mind, this is a big, big maybe.
- --Birdienest81talk 20:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
List of Cathay Dragon destinations
- Notified: Nobody (I really don't know who to notify)
This list is nominated for featured list removal (mainly) because of failing to meet attribute 2 of WP:FLCR. The lead of the list is too short for a featured list (even for a featured list of the same type like List of Braathens destinations). It is also notable that there are some (permanent) dead links in the references which may also indicate its failure to meet attribute 3b of WP:FLCR (although it may not be a main point). Sanmosa Outdia 06:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delist – the lead is awful and fails to provide sufficient context for the list. I don't know why it was changed so much from how it passed FLC, but this is wildly different and does not meet FL requirements. Notifying Aviator006, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Hong Kong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @RunningTiger123: Looks like the whole lead section was deleted by a single edit back in November 2019. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep – Thank you RunningTiger123 for the notification and I can see that another user has re-updated/replaced the lead. The deadlinks are because the airline has now defuncted and merged to the parent company, Cathay Pacific, perhaps the links should be checked and linked against archives instead. Nevertheless, the list still demonstrates a level of standard a featured list should or aim to be. Aviator006 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Lots of those links do not seem to have proper archives; in many cases, the archived pages seem to just redirect to old route booking pages. I also have issues with the inclusion criteria for items on the list – the introduction says the list includes all passenger routes that were being flown when the airline shut down, but then it includes several routes that were "terminated", i.e., not being flown at that time. The lead was the most obvious issue at first, but I still support delisting due to issues with sourcing and inclusion criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've just run IABot. Seems fine, not checked one by one though. Sun8908 Talk 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- IABot isn't always accurate; sometimes the archived pages don't have the same information as when they were added, and a few lead to completely different pages (compare the URL for source 46 to the archived link as an example). The new IABot links in particular seem to be bad, which makes sense since the Cathay Dragon website doesn't exist now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe the permanent dead links can be replaced. Sun8908 Talk 08:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've just run IABot. Seems fine, not checked one by one though. Sun8908 Talk 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Lots of those links do not seem to have proper archives; in many cases, the archived pages seem to just redirect to old route booking pages. I also have issues with the inclusion criteria for items on the list – the introduction says the list includes all passenger routes that were being flown when the airline shut down, but then it includes several routes that were "terminated", i.e., not being flown at that time. The lead was the most obvious issue at first, but I still support delisting due to issues with sourcing and inclusion criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Brush up per Aviator006 and keep. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, if the list needs to be "brushed up", that implies it's not currently in a suitable state for FL status. We shouldn't say "it will probably get better, so we should keep it"; if it's not good now, it should be delisted until it returns to FL quality. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, it means its current state is still good for FL but it's better to improve it according to what Aviator006 suggested. I think what I said was clear enough. Please do not distort to make a point. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Since this is a defunct airline, the destinations would require as a column date ranges (when Cathay Dragon flew those routes, instead of "notes"), or are we to assume that these were the routes at the end when they merged? But that doesn't make sense since some are listed as "terminated". Either way, Delist until this issue is resolved. The lead could use more information as well (what was/were the first routes, when did they start flying, etc..) Mattximus (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This has been open a long time, with split opinions on delisting or keeping. Normally that would default to keeping, but in looking through the article I don't feel that the list is FL quality. As others have mentioned, routes are listed as "Terminated" without saying when they stopped, apparently the cargo routes in general were also terminated but it doesn't say when, it doesn't say when any of these routes started, "Charter" is both a column option and a superscript tag, its just assumed readers know when "Seasonal" refers to, and the lead, though now existing, is still anemic and gives insufficient context. There's a lot to be done here, so I'm giving less weight to the keep votes, who beyond voting don't seem to have done much to improve the list in response to issues. I'll leave this open for another week, but if nothing changes I'll delist it. --PresN 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)