Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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 at least a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.  – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

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

Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Disambig links External links Alt text Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page). To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits. If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations urgently needing reviews edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: List of Broadway theaters (FLC) List of Malta international footballers (FLC) List of World Heritage Sites in Sweden (FLC) List of Leeteuk performances (FLC) List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul (FLC) List of medieval churches on Gotland (FLC) Lecrae discography (FLC) List of FIFA World Cup winning managers (FLC) Grade I listed buildings in Rhondda Cynon Taf (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: List of national anthems (FLRC) List of extant papal tombs (FLRC)

Nominations

Carlos Kleiber discography

Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well this has certainly been some process. Kleiber has always been one of my favorite conductors but I only recently learned of his legendary, yet mysterious reputation in the Western Classical Music world. This list would not be possible without the use of Toru Hirasawa's website, which at first glance may seem unreliable but my rationale for reliability is the following: In Charles Barber's biography on Kleiber he offers a partial discography (which has been thoroughly used) and recommends Hirasawa's list for a complete list, saying: "For accuracy and completeness it stands above all others". Ap news also says that Hirasawa "has researched a comprehensive performance history". This being said, if the reviewers still do not find the source agreeable, this list will likely be impossible to make at FL status, as no other comprehensive databases for such information (nor references that discuss many of the minor recordings) exist. Other than this I think the list meets the criteria, but am open to any suggestions or criticism! Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• numbers less than 10 (eg "9 studio albums") should be written as words
• "five-decade career" needs a hyphen
• "it was done so against his wishes" => "it was done against his wishes"
• "His small number of studio recordings each one became critically acclaimed in their own right" => "Each of his small number of studio recordings became critically acclaimed in its own right"
• "Kleiber's' contributions" - one too many apostrophes in there
• The first sentence of paragraph 2 is far too long and should be broken up
• "followed by monumental recordings" - what does "monumental" mean here? I don't understand
• "It was around this time that a Kleiber became well associated" - "a Kleiber"?
• "1977 also saw the release" - a sentence shouldn't start with a number, also a year cannot "see" anything
• This sentence is also too long and should be shortened or broken up
• "These recordings were more controversial than earlier releases" - why?
• "until April of 1982" => "until April 1982"
• "especially from the daring yet successful pick" => "especially for the daring yet successful pick"
• "Out of the eighteen orchestras he performed with" => "Out of the eighteen orchestras with which he performed"
• "19 recordings of live performances survive" - again, don't start a sentence with a number
• "posthumuos documenteries" - both these words are spelt wrong
• "Addtionally, two posthumuos documenteries on Kleiber were also" - additionally and also mean exactly the same thing, there is no reason to use both
• I will look at the tables later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • All fixed... some very silly mistakes on my part...! Aza24 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the first table

• "Release" doesn't need a capital in the headers
• "Lps" should be written as "LPs"
• Think that's it on that one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Ali Daei

Nominator(s): Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because of it has covers Wp:Featured list criteria. Ali Daei is all-time men's top goalscorer with 109 goals and one of the Legend of AFC in all-time.this is one of the best list in this area.I've featured this list in fa wiki too. it has additional tables and informations from similar lists and i have improved it from this version to current version.i have noticed the details for all sections of this list too.thanks. Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

this is my first nomination and i've searched many references and read very lists to do my best.i spent much times for improving this list.please help me to solve the problems.thanks all of you--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review – oppose

• What makes teammelli.com a reliable source?
• What makes national-football-teams.com a reliable source?
• The references need to be tidied: for example, if teammelli.com is reliable, then refs #86 to #93 need to be expanded to give more detail, while some other references need to be made consistent.
• Is the "Record of Iran, When Daei scored" table original research based on the RSSSF list?
• The "Stadiums that Daei scored in them" table is unreferenced.
• The "Goals by year" table is unreferenced.
• The "Goals by competition" table is unreferenced.
• The "Goals by confederation" table is unreferenced.
• The "Goals by opposition" table is unreferenced.

That's it on a quick first pass. Harrias ^talk 06:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your comment.first thing i must say that i checked all the same lists and get note from each for improving this list. both site are reliable,i asked before from an admin and they are used in many articles include some featured list.for 1st ref you can see Category:Iran national football team results and for second ref, we have this {{NFT player}} so they are reliable.86 to 93 are additional refs and i improve them as you say.the record of iran becomes from the main table.add green column for example for winning and so..i solved them--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mojtaba2361: Sorry, let me be clearer in my wording. Please demonstrate what makes "teammelli.com" and "national-football-teams.com" reliable, based upon WP:RS. Saying that "an admin" says it is okay is not sufficient. All references must be filled out to include all relevant information in a consistent fashion to meet FL criteria. To avoid further confusion, I currently oppose the promotion of this list due to the sourcing concerns. Harrias ^talk 17:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: a few sites have ali daei's statistic because he was older footballer.many refs are from 11v11.com as you can see List of international goals scored by Alfredo Di Stéfano (other candidates of fl) that use this. please see List of top international men's football goal scorers by country, many refs are from National Football Teams.95% of refs in my list are from above site.A few of them from teammelli or national football (for auxiliary links).if team melli.com wasn't reliable it couldn't be used in many articles.the template i pointed above is for national football team site. if it doesn't reliable it can't have template. i'll solve your concern about ref.wait please..--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

An awful lot of work to do here, I'm afraid......

• Lead image needs a better caption than just his name
• Lead should not be in six very short paragraphs
• "Ali Daei is the all-time men's top goalscorer and a former Iranian football player who holds the record for the most goals in international men's football" - this says exactly the same thing twice and should be reworded
• "His achievement listed in Guinness World Records" => "His achievement is listed in Guinness World Records"
• No explanation as to what "Team Melli" is
• "qualification for 1994 FIFA World Cup" => "qualification for the 1994 FIFA World Cup"
• "at Asian Cup qualifier in Tehran against Lebanon" => "in an Asian Cup qualifier in Tehran against Lebanon"
• "elevating him past Hungarian legend" - calling someone a legend is not NPOV
• "making him the first male player to score 100 goals in international caps" => "making him the first male player to score 100 goals in international football"
• "He has scored eight international Hat-tricks." - no reason for capital H there
• "On 1 March 2006, His final goal" - no reason for capital H there
• "His final caps for Team Melli was in 2006 FIFA World Cup" => "His final cap for Team Melli was in the 2006 FIFA World Cup"
• "final goal came in 3–2 victory over Costa Rica in friendly match" => "final goal came in a 3–2 victory over Costa Rica in a friendly match"
• "He scored eight goals against Maldives" => "He scored eight goals against the Maldives"
• Last sentence of the lead does not have a full stop
• "National Statistics" - no reason for capital S
• "All apperences" - second word is spelt wrong
• "Daei scored 109 goals in 149 Caps." - no reason for capital C
• Actually, both tables in this section are not standard in lists like this and should be removed anyway
• "(4)1–1(3)" - no explanation as to what this means. The result should be shown simply as 1-1 with the fact that Iran won on penalties in a footnote
• There is no key for the colours in the result column
• Hat-tricks section should not have a wikilink in the heading
• "Daei's last hat-trick against Laos, allowed him to become first male player to score 100 goals in international caps" => "Daei's last hat-trick against Laos allowed him to become the first male player to score 100 goals in international football."
• No other such article has a table breaking goals down by stadium - get rid of it
• Ref 1 - missing publication date
• Ref 2 - "Goal (website)" should be piped to Goal
• Refs 3 and 4 have no publisher, also the dates are in a completely different format to other refs
• Ref 5 - the publisher is not "national football team"
• Refs 9 and 10 missing publication date
• Ref 11 has the publisher as RSSSF.com, but ref 8 just had it as RSSSF
• Ref 63 has a strange random pipe at the start of the title
• Ref 68 is missing "11v11.com"
• Refs 86 to 93 have no publisher, publication date or access date
• What makes teammelli.com a reliable source? Can't you just re-use the 11v11 sources, anyway?
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your time to reviewing the article Mr.chris..one thing that i have to say is i done an innovation for this list,fore example: by stadium section. it shows that Daei scored in 74 matches and some other informations inspired from this FL so it can be use in similar lists in future (like hat-trick section that wasn't in similar FL lists in 2008 and they are new.Ronaldo's goals not included this part when become featured list,and it added recently).if others says they are extra too, i'll remove them at last.11v11.com doesn't have some matches and i replaced them with national.com or team melli (i explain above for Harris about this).cr7's list has not key for the colours too but i add key for this list.all of above about sentences and refs and lead  Done.i'll improve lead a little more. thanks a lot--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what other people think, but if the venues section is kept, the heading should be "Goals by venue" because "venues of scoring" is not good English. And the title of the table should be "Goals by stadium" not what it currently is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks.i changed the titles.anything more?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, quite a lot. The lead is still in six tiny paragraphs. the "all appearances" and "scoring matches" tables are still there, which I said should be removed. There is still at least one random capital letter in the middle of a sentence. There are still references with bad formatting. Please read all my points above and action them all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias and ChrisTheDude: hello.i changed the refs and adding Rsssf helping link near of 2 sites.the links include iran's squads and daei's goals. Are you satisfied with it?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Still not seeing much evidence of the reliability of teammelli.com........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: all of above  Done, lead improved, refs changed and amended, two sections deleted.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

• Lead image caption needs a full stop
• "elevating him past Hungarian footballer, Ferenc Puskás" - no reason for that comma
• "Daei was called up to join Iran national football team" => "Daei was called up to join the Iran national football team"
• Why is Team Melli shown once in italics and once not?
• You also don't need to wikilink Team Melli twice in the same paragraph
• "his final goal came in 3–2 victory" => "his final goal came in a 3–2 victory"
• "His final appearance for Team Melli was in 2006 FIFA World Cup" => "His final appearance for Team Melli was in the 2006 FIFA World Cup"
• "in a 8–0 win" => "in an 8–0 win"
• "On 17 November 2004, his last hat-trick against Laos" => "On 17 November 2004, he scored his last hat-trick against Laos"
• "He has scored 44 international goals" => "He scored 44 international goals"
• Ref 5 lists Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation as the publisher but other refs from the same site do not
• Ref 88 lists no publisher
• Ref 9 uses publisher=national football team, other refs list website=national-football-teams.com
• Nearly there :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

List of avisos of Germany

This list comprises all of the avisos built by the German fleets, beginning with the Prussian in the 1840s and ending with one such vessel for the Nazis in the 1930s. The list is the capstone to this topic. The list passed a Milhist A-class review earlier this year, so hopefully it shouldn't need much work. Thanks to all who take the time to help me iron out any remaining issues. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

• Good to see you at FLC again, Nate.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the tables seems fine.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
• 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. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support and well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits look good to me, thanks Dan! Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review

Some small things:

• Reliability looks good, academic sources mostly.
• ISBN for volume 8?
  • For some reason, the books don't have ISBNs printed in them and Worldcat stopped putting entries in after volume 7.
• link Matti Friedman
  • I always forget to look for these
• translated title for Bilzer? (and, I'm guessing, an "in german" as well?)
  • Added
• Everything else looks good Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Odd about the ISBN, I looked around a little and couldn't find it or OCLC either, are you using an online or physical version? Maybe it would be available inside the book itself. Aza24 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I have hard copies - they don't have ISBNs printed in them, for some reason. They're obviously not so old as to predate ISBNs. I will say that Worldcat is often very spotty in what they do and don't have entries for, particularly foreign works. It can be frustrating. Parsecboy (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Wales national football team results 1900–1914

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of the first list comes the next page. I've incorporated the comments from the previous FLC to hopefully make this one more streamlined. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "recording two second place finishes" - I would say there should be a hyphen in "second-place"
• "However, this was followed" - don't think a sentence should start with "however", so redo as "This was followed, however"
• "A second place finish in the 1908–09 championship was the highest placed finish" - I think both "second-place" and "highest-placed" need hyphens
• "In the remaining 33 fixtures, Wales drew 11 and lost 23" 11 + 23 !=33
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I've amended all of the points above. Kosack (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Minimal sources: No issues in formatting or reliability. I changed the "Bibliography" header to "General" since "Bibliography" would be an umbrella term used for the section heading (in place of "References" for example). Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Hot C&W Sides number ones of 1961

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the latest in the seemingly never-ending run of country number one song lists - 1944, 1959, and all the years from 1963 to 2011 inclusive are at FL and 1962 currently has multiple supports, a source review pass and no outstanding issues, so should be good to go. Fun fact: one of this year's biggest hits was by Faron Young, who was on the bill at the very first live concert I ever went to (not in 1961, though, I'm not that old!!!)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Reliability and formatting looks good, especially per previous FLCs source reviews which use the same formatting and similar sources. Btw Chris, are you planning to do all of the Billboard country lists? (if so, that's awesome!) Aza24 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Aza24: - I have already got every country singles and albums number ones list (about 130 articles) up to what I think is pretty much FL standard, it's just a case of nominating them :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I only found one mistake: the must successful → the most successful; I support this nomination once it been fixed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I fixed that typo - well spotted! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support I can't find a fault --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Spick and span, as usual. ~ HAL333 01:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Belarus

Nominator(s): Tone 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Belarus has four sites on the list and five tentative sites. The article follows the standard style for WHS. The sources for last site are messy, apparently the UNESCO site needs some cleaning, but it is possible to figure out what it is about. The lists for Sweden and the Netherlands are still running at the moment but they have decent support at this point so I am adding a new nom. Tone 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Support: Great work! ----Wright Streetdeck 10:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "This is also the only natural site in Belarus" => "This is the only natural site in Belarus"
• " the Struve Geodetic Arc is also transnational site" => " the Struve Geodetic Arc is also a transnational site"
• "were inviting artists, craftsmen, and architects" => "invited artists, craftsmen, and architects"
• "These interactions helped transmitting" => "These interactions helped transmit"
• The first sentence under the Augustow Canal is incredibly long and confusing - can you break it up?
• "This nomination is considering" - this should really be "considers" rather than "in considering", but I actually think that "covers" would be a more appropriate verb
• "In 17th and 18th centuries" => "In the 17th and 18th centuries"
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you! --Tone 20:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Pass – reliability and formatting is good. Mostly reliant on UNESCO sources as is standard for UNESCO lists. Aza24 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

List of What Would You Do? episodes

Nominator(s): Horacio Vara (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets FL criteria. It shows all the episodes in the series, shows valuable information that could be valuable to the reader, and has a graph/ratings section that adds to its notability. Horacio Vara (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• One more query - you say that the anniversary special "featur[ed] scenarios from Primetime: What Would You Do? and season one", but earlier you said it was known as P:WWYD for its first five seasons, so the sentence as written doesn't really make sense. I presume that by "Primetime: What Would You Do?" you mean segments which originally aired as part of Primetime? Might need a re-word to make that clear..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • When appearing as segments for Primetime, the segments were called Primetime: What Would You Do?. When the show became its own show, the series was still called Primetime: What Would You Do?. Horacio Vara (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I understand that, but saying "P:WWYD and season one" doesn't work, because the first five seasons (including season one) were all called P:WWYD. You probably need to change it to "featuring scenarios originally aired on Primetime and in season one" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I have done as requested. Horacio Vara (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review

I will get to this eventually (so many sources!) but for now you should add a project(s) banner to the talk page of the article. Probably Wikiproject lists and the American Television task force (they're used in this page if that helps) Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

List of viverrids

Nominator(s): PresN 23:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

We return to my animals-in-a-family series (previously: felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids) after a couple months with list #7: viverrids, encompassing the 33 species of viverridae split primarily between the civets and the genets, aka the "mongoose-y cats". Unlike the previous lists, which usually had at least a couple well-known examples, many English-speaking readers may have never even heard of these animals, as they're a group of relatively small carnivores mainly hiding away in the jungles, forests, and shrublands of Africa and southeast Asia. As a result, we're missing images for a few of the rarer African genets, and a few others have to make do with drawings. As always, the list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Under the common genet, I can see "eg. inland cliffs" - is the use of a single dot a typo? Or is that how it is written in US English (where I am we would either use two dots or none at all, but maybe it's different over there.....?)
• TBH I think that's all I have - great work as ever...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: - nope, it's supposed to be e.g., which is how I missed it when removing those asides. Now fixed. --PresN 20:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Couldn't find anything — nice work. ~ HAL333 20:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Very nice as usual, nothing caught my eye. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Louis Schwitzer Award

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Louis Schwitzer Award is presented by the Indiana Section of SAE International to recognize innovative concepts used in racing cars entered for the Indianapolis 500. It is named after the inventor Louis H. Schwitzer and the winners of the award have their names added to a trophy on permanent display in the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Museum. I believe this list meets the criteria to be at a featured level and look forward to all comments and concerns. Should the list pass this review, it would be the first FL for American open-wheel racing. MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Another great list. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment

• "Accolade sponsor BorgWarner and the Indiana Section of SAE International provides" => "Accolade sponsor BorgWarner and the Indiana Section of SAE International provide" (the subject is plural)
• "The award has been shared just once in its history: in 1977" - I think you need to re-word this. I know what you mean, but in 2002, for example, it was technically shared by six individuals
• "Firestone tire engineer Cara Adams became the first women recipient" - "women recipient" isn't correct. She isn't a "women". I think "female recipient" would work better.
• In the infobox there's an amusing typo in "Reward(s): Plague"
• Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have made edits based on the comments made above. MWright96 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: still don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• A {{short description}} would be helpful ... something simple like "engineering award for racing vehicle improvements" would work.
• Personally, I have no problem at all with the sort order in the "Concept" column; I think sorting in columns like this one is mainly used to group similar items. But some reviewers prefer to sort "Beadall" under B (instead of sorting by quote marks) and to sort "2015 Chevrolet" under C (using "data-sort-value" or {{sort}}). Otherwise, I'm not seeing any problems with the table coding.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. I'd move "complying with IndyCar Series technical regulations" from the first to the second sentence. I don't get "engineer by". Otherwise, the prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine. There's an argument that several links are Easter eggs; "March 84C chassis", for instance, links to a company rather than a product. But I'm actually okay with the way you do it, I think.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I linked some publishers/websites to make the linking consistent.
• Reliability is fine, formatting is good – easy pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Britney Spears

Nominator(s): Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Once Again, I am nominating this for a featured list along with Javila200084898 because I believed that this page already meets FL Criteria and guidelines, Javila200084898 and I are the most contributed to this page. First, as you can see in the previous version which is the table, date, sources, font, and else is a reallu mess so I've made my contributed to clean all the mess until it meets the criteria. In terms of reference, the reference of the previous version is very incomplete and I've resolved this problem. The Lead, Prose, Comprehensiveness is created by Javila200084898 and I believed that the sentence doesn't need the copyediting also in that section I only solved the problem of the date to make all of the dates are consistent. Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The lead is too long and needs trimming. This could be accomplished by removing stuff which isn't really about her songs e.g. "Unlike all of Spears' previous albums, Blackout was not heavily promoted through magazine interviews, talk-show appearances or televised performances besides a performance at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards and was not accompanied by a tour either" - none of that is really relevant to a list of her songs. I'm not convinced that most of the final paragraph is relevant either. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

List of hill stations in Malaysia

Nominator(s): WPSamson (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for the featured list as this list and lead introduction has been recently edited to meet the FL criteria and were properly referenced for each statements and this is my first nomination for the list which is also the list I am heavily edited along with several copyeditors who fixed several grammatical in some of the sentences. Hill station in Malaysia is unique due to not only the colonial era hill station has been properly maintained that makes it’s hill station authentic like during the British colonial era, but also the Genting Highlands which constructed since post-independence era that makes this hill station popular among tourists due to modernity, the only casino in Malaysia, and the place for entertainment for families. I am looking forward for the improvement for this list that I am nominated. Thank you. WPSamson (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Refs would look better centred

Question: What does it mean with the references is look better when centered?

It would look better if the refs were aligned in the centre of the column, rather than to the left -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done @ChrisTheDude: Just got more clear that centering the references is on column section instead. WPSamson (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• That's it for a first pass...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @ChrisTheDude:, I had addressed the first issue based on the first comment. Can have a look at the improved article and check if there are necessary changes needed for the latest changes. WPSamson (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

• A "format=PDF" for ref 1 would be nice

 Done

• Given that the location is only in ref 2, I would either add locations to the other refs or delete it here

Removed

• Refs 3 and 14 shouldn't be in all caps per MOS

 Done

• Ref 6 missing author

 Done

• Link Geographical Review in ref 11

 Done

• I'm unsure if ref 14 is reliable, it's self published but written by an Academic. Can the @WP:FLC director and delegates: weigh in here?
• "format=PDF" for ref 19

 Done

• The further reading section to be changed to "Sources" or "Bibliography" – further reading means that the sources in the section are not used in the article, this is not the case here. Aza24 (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done

• I think ref 14 is fine, Harun's field of study is "Science, Technology and Asian Society", so not unrelated, and the founding details of a Malaysian colonial town are not particularly controversial. That said: --PresN 15:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Fix WP:ALLCAPS in refs 3, 14

 Done

• • If he's an expert in the field, I think the reference will be okay. However, it does need the all caps removed as Pres said, and if the content comes from a particular chapter of the book, it would be helpful to include that for verifiability (I'm not seeing any page numbers in the version I looked at). Under the publisher= parameter of the cite template, I'd put Self-published in the field, as I noticed the missing publisher in the reference. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done -  Comment. I had placed the chapter name on the references and replace URL with chapter-url parameter for easy finding on where the content pages comes from. WPSamson (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: The source part are done per recommendation. Thanks. WPSamson (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Good work, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @ChrisTheDude: & @Aza24: WPSamson (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts

• I gave it a copyedit, but the prose probably needs some more tuning

 Done modify the prose a bit for better understanding

• The dates need a consistent format and order

 Done

• What citation style is Aiken, S. Robert, October 1987. p. 426 in?

Fixed using Harvard citation style

• You probably don't need to cite Aiken's bio

 Done

• GGR Asia is a blog

Resolved replaced with more reliable newspaper site for citation purpose

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I had resolved the list page based on your thoughts. Can have a review on the updated page. Thanks. WPSamson (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaubisi Rajya

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaubisi Rajya were sovereign and intermittently allied petty kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent, ruled by Khas from medieval India ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment - what does the number column mean/signify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• ​ Nothing really except for counting the 24 principalities. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 10:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove it. It makes it look like they were officially numbered in some way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• ​Removed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 10:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

• Why is the article title in italics?
• "that Khas people ruled" => "that the Khas people ruled"
• "then he proceeded to the unification process of present day country of Nepal" => "he subsequently began the unification process of the present day country of Nepal"
• "Palpa was one of the biggest kingdoms and powerful" => "Palpa was one of the biggest and most powerful kingdoms"
• "they were able to create independent kingdoms" - who's "they"?
• "then he went to win a battle against Belkot" => "then went on to win a battle against Belkot"
• "these kingdoms played a pivotal role" - in what?
• "The unified Kingdom of Nepal continued to be ruled by Shah dynasty; with Rana dynasty de facto ruling the country" => "The unified Kingdom of Nepal continued to be ruled by the Shah dynasty, with the Rana dynasty de facto ruling the country"
• "and transited to the Federal Democratic Republic" => "and transitioned to the Federal Democratic Republic"
• Is there a more interesting heading than just "list"?
• "Map of current day provinces" => "Map of present day provinces"
• Refs should be centred
• Are there any additional pieces of data about the kingdoms that could be added to the table? It just seems a bit "thin" with just two columns......
• Regards -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude, I believe I have addressed your comments except for expanding the list because there isn't anything available to add into the list. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• ​Now it shows maps.~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Some random comments first:

• That RFC that passed a couple weeks ago requires a table name on the table regardless of context I believe
• With that said perhaps rather than one long column for the tables refs, that might look better next to the name (like here) or with a "sources: ... " like at the bottom of the table at List of presidents of the United States
• Source comments:
• Page number/s for ref 2? and 3, 5, 8 13 and 14 as well
• isbn for ref 3? (see here – I believe this is the correct publication)
• Reliability seems fine Aza24 (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Aza24, All done. Thanks for the comments. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Can we get page numbers for refs 1 and 3...? having 200 and 450 page documents without a page number to confirm the information kind of defeats the point of a reference :) Aza24 (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Aza24, Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Awesome, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts

• I would remove the maps because they don't really tell you where the kingdoms were
• Not sortable
• The sources column isn't really MOS compliant

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• • @Guerillero and CAPTAIN MEDUSA:: I made an edit that ... I hope ... deals with your second and third points, Guerillero. (Feel free to revert if I misunderstood.) That's all I've got for now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Guerillero, Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

List of descriptive plant epithets (A–H)

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Johnboddie (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination with John, who did most of the work for A to D. Sorry for putting up two complicated lists; the payoff is that these lists will make our other plant lists easier to write (and review, I hope). You may find answers to your burning questions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of descriptive plant epithets (I–Z)/archive1. All comments are welcome, as always. Reviewers, please do me a favor and check to see if all the images load for you ... sometimes they don't for some readers on long lists, and I need to know if that's happening with this list (it was for Chris with the other list). - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Given that the sources are virtually the same as the other half of the list my comments apply to both lists. Aza24 (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Pass per the same changes made on the other list. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Heh, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Fine work. ~ HAL333 20:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks much. Maybe we'll take the record for fewest bytes in an FLC? Works for me! - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations

List of awards and nominations received by Alicia Vikander

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Alicia Vikander is a Swedish actress who has won numerous accolades including the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role in The Danish Girl. As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing, sorry ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by HAL333

• I think it would make more sense if 2012 adaptation linked to Anna Karenina (2012 film) and Anna Karenina linked to the actual novel. Everything else looks great. ~ HAL333 20:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: Thanks for the review. I've made the above amendment. Cowlibob (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 21:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

Overall, it looks really good; there are just two quick fixes to consider.

• From what I can tell, while most of the sources are archived, four aren't. Is there a reason for that, or can they be archived as well?
• I think that Template:Runner-up would be better than changing the text for Template:Nom for categories in which she was a runner-up or received a specific place. It helps to distinguish between more specific recognition and a regular nomination.

– RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Thanks for your comments. I have run the IABot again and I think it has picked up the missing sources that needed archiving. Also added the runner-up template (wasn't aware of its existence till now). Cowlibob (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Support – Looks good! One final edit to consider (this isn't enough to change my support, but it's something to consider): now that you know about Template:Runner-up, you could use that on the awards for which she received 2nd or 4th place. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1962

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Another list of number-one country songs. If 1963 (currently at four supports) and this one pass, it will mean a run of 50 consecutive years all at FL status. This time round the artists included Patsy Cline, possessor of undoubtedly one of the greatest voices of all times, and Marty Robbins, my father's favourite when I was a child - I have strong memories of his music drifting through our house....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done very minor copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. There were no redirects to avoid in the table. The coding in the table seems fine now; I've added a table caption that will be readable only by screen readers.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks good. I'm just not a huge fan of the lede image and its lighting. If you wanted to to, you could change it to this more colorful picture, perhaps cropped. Not a huge deal though. ~ HAL333 20:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

I linked some works/publishers, pass for source review – reliability and formatting is good. Aza24 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support — Great work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 10:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by The West Wing

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The political drama The West Wing was acclaimed throughout its run, becoming one of the most award-winning shows of its time (including four Emmy wins for Outstanding Drama Series, which ties the record). It also remains a fairly popular show today given that it aired its last episode almost 15 years ago. This list has existed for a while, but I recently overhauled the page's formatting and added valid sources – the page had relied heavily on IMDb up to this point, which was really unsatisfying for such a well-known show. I modeled the page after the similar list for Community, which was recently promoted to FL status, so hopefully the formatting looks good. Any and all comments are appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems other than the usual warnings about IMDB (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. The one image is fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• That's all I've got for now. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I made one change to your copyediting from point 1, since it seemed to imply the actors in the preceding sentence were not main cast members (at least to me). RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC) P.S. Agreed with Guerillero about IMDB, and I should have been clearer that IMDB failed the UPSD test, and that knowing what IMDB can or can't be used for is outside my skill set. - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "The original cast starred" - this seems like odd wording. "The original cast included" or "The show originally starred" would work, but I don't think the current wording is right.
• I would say the episode title "18th and Potomac" should sort under "eighteenth"
• Similarly, the category "60 Minute Category" should sort under "Sixty"
• Think that's it from me - great work, overall -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The changes you suggested should now be in place. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

I will get to this sometime soon, a lot of sources! Aza24 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Well that did not take as long as I thought it would. Since everything is archived I didn't have to check for broken links and there are so many Emmy links that checking for consistent formatting for those was easy. Great work here, I don't think I've ever reviewed an article with this many sources and found no inconsistencies with formatting, linking, information or reliability. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts

• Please don't roll your own infobox. The fonts are all off
• IMDB isn't an RS
• E Pluribus Unum Award, Family Television Awards, and Publicists Guild of America Awards seems non notable

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox and removed references to IMDb (though the external link at the end is still there). In regard to the three awards you mentioned, here are why I included them:

• The E Pluribus Unum Awards and the American Cinema Foundation have little to no external coverage, so I'd understand if we removed those – I simply carried them over from earlier versions of the article.
• I think that the Family Television Awards are notable because they aired on a major network (CBS) and have coverage in external sources (see this and this).
• The Publicists Guild of America Awards are presented by an accredited guild with external recognition in Variety (as shown in the list's references).

– RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Burnley F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Another list I'm nominating about association football club Burnley F.C.. Every season the club has played is presented in a statistical manner, including division, cup competitions, other competitions, top scorers and avg. attendance. Other similar FL were used as a benchmark. I'm looking forward to all feedback/reviews. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 37 missing retrieval date
  • Added WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• That's all I got, pass for source review since this isn't enough to not warrant one. Do add a retrieval date for that one when you get a chance though. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Aza24 Thank you for again taking up the source review, it's much appreciated! I added an access date to ref 37. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

List of paintings by Thomas Cole

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Cole was the first American landscape painter and the founder of the Hudson River School, a romantic art movement. ~ HAL333 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Leaning oppose Support

• it thrills me to see a list of paintings here, but as much as I hate opposing (or leaning towards oppose in this case) there are some rather big issues. Aza24 (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Major issues

• Every painting should have a column for if they're on canvas or panel (and if they're oil, tempera, water color etc.)

 Done

• With the above being said the entire notes section seems to only fill up space and not give anything valuable. The panel and canvas stuff could be in a new column per the comment above, the "also known as" could be in a note after the titles or under the titles themselves (perhaps with "small" parameters) and the "Recently sold, replaced by museum-quality replica" should be in a note or under the info in the collection column

 Done

• The country/state/city should really be listed after the museums – I'm not sure which would be most appropriate, perhaps state for the US and then city for other countries?

 Done

• I'm really confused by separating the height and width columns, I don't think any other lists of works on Wikipedia seperate them, and they are never seperated in the art world. Ideally they should be put together and would be better sortable by square centimeters.
• Would like to see a color for the sketches/studies to separate them from the actual paintings. I would recommend a neutral color like #FED or #FFFFDD that doesn't draw too much extra attention to them. This being said, moving them to a different section entirely might be worthwhile as well.

 Done

Minor issues

• Image column shouldn't be sortable

 Done

• I'm fairly confident that the words "Sketch" and "study" if directly relating to a painting he made later should not be italicized. (e. g. Study for The Angel Appearing to the Shepherds)

 Done

• Would put all of the "c." in a template:

  {{circa|year}} or {{circa|year–year}}

 Done

• The "excluding frame" notes are unnecessary – paintings are almost never measured with their frames included

 Done

• This may be just me, so take this with a grain of salt, but for tables like these the information may all look far better formatted if all centered. See my in process List of works by Leonardo da Vinci or the monster of a list List of works by Vincent van Gogh
• I am yet to read carefully through the lead or look at sources, but I would rather hear back from you first. I hope this doesn't discourage you, as you are a fabulous contributor and we need more FL for lists of paintings. Aza24 (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I really had no idea how to format it - I couldn't find any other lists like it. These two lists are very helpful. I've addressed some of your comments. However, I have a pretty big examination coming up, so I'm taking a bit of a wikibreak. I'll be able to address the rest if your comments beginning on Sunday. Thanks! ~ HAL333 22:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't blame you for being unable to find good examples of paintings lists. Besides the two I mentioned most of them only exist for the sake of existing and have little references and no lead. List of paintings by Johannes Vermeer is alright as well. The same issue seems to arise with lists of compositions for composers, besides decent ones for Bach and Beethoven, most are a lazy bullet list or weirdly proportionate table. Anyways take your time with the changes, it's looking better already Aza24 (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also noticed that I'm missing a few of his works, so I'll be making a deep dive into his works. I was really busy over the past week and a half, and consequently, this is somewhat sloppy work on my part. ~ HAL333 22:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• Wikilink (and capitalise) Industrial Revolution
• Self-taught needs a hyphen
• "One of Cole's first landscapes Lake with Dead Trees (1825)" - need a comma after landscapes
• "the "the truly American forest"" - the the?
• "painted the The Course of Empire" - and again :-)
• "personal opposition to Andrew Jackson" => "personal opposition to US President Andrew Jackson" (for the benefit of those, including me, who didn't know who he was)
• "Later in life, Thomas transitioned" => "Later in life, Cole transitioned"
• Think that's it on the lead. I will look at the table later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

🤦 Done ~ HAL333 18:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

• I'm a sucker for beautiful lists. For this review, I'm not commenting on anything that's already been covered above.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
• "Final works": Completed works?

 Done

• I haven't checked out the images yet.
• There's an argument that "Oil on canvas 64.1 x 89.2 cm" doesn't sort as expected because it comes after all the numerical entries (such as "64.2 x 89.7 cm"), but I can also see the argument that this might be the sorting you want. I fixed an apparent inconsistency with "Rhode Island School of Design Museum of Art". Otherwise, I see no problems with the table links and coding.
• FLC criteria:
  • 1. I'm going to pass on my usual copyediting. Lots of the paintings aren't set in New York State, so it's hard to justify "Nearly all of his works depict the wilderness, "the truly American forest", typically the Hudson River Valley and Catskills".

 Done I clarified that. ~ HAL333 23:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
• I'll leave it there until you get back from your break. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the table

• Does "final works" have a specific meaning in art? I had to think for a moment what it actually meant

 Done

• Most of the paintings have the medium missing - this info is known, surely?
• There's one sketch listed in the first table - surely this should be in the second?

 Done

• In the second table, the collection column is centre-aligned, but in the first it was left-aligned

 Done I was originally planning on centering everything, but I decided against it. ~ HAL333 22:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a way to work in a wikilink to Study (art)?

 Done

• Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Most of these comments are a result of Hal responding to my comments but being mid process in doing so. I agree with Chris that "final works" is rather odd and while I recognize that the "final works" is to contrast with the studies (which are effectively drafts for the "final works") it may be better to remove the sub sections and put the studies in another section entirely (in the process moving the "final works" to just the paintings section) Aza24 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I broke it off into two sections: "Paintings" and "Preparative works". I was hesitant to title it studies because one is called a sketch. However, a provided a See Also link to Study (Art). Does that work? ~ HAL333 22:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• Y"1837 portrait..." avoid starting sentences with a number.
• YIs this list comprehensive, i.e. do we have a source against we can check every painting Cole ever made is listed, or is it an {{incomplete list}}?

I think I'm missing one or two. There have been a few sales and auctions in recent years. I'm currently going through a list and checking whether each one is in a public collection. ~ HAL333 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I just finsihed going through all his paintings. All public documented ones are here now. ~ HAL333 22:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• YMedium, Dimensions -> dimensions.
• In the table, the dimensions should use the multiplication symbol, not an "x", and I would also expect them to be converted to Imperial too. Good news is the {{convert}} template facilitates all that.

I'm hesitant to switch it to imperial. The metric system is kind of the go to in the art world. For example, infoboxes place the metric measurements before the imperial ones. ~ HAL333 22:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying switch it, I'm saying include both. It's common practice across the encyclopedia because while some understand cm, some only understand in. The convert template is your friend! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. ~ HAL333 04:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Some entries are missing medium, some are missing dimensions.
• What is the sorting methodology for the "Medium, dimensions" column?
• YWhy isn't Louvre linked?
• YNewark Museum is The Newark Museum of Art.
• What makes some of his paintings more "notable" than the others? I'm asking why some have articles and all the rest don't (and aren't even red-linked)?

Some of the more well-known works have their articles; however there a quite a few that I would think are notable. Should I just wikilink them all? ~ HAL333 22:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That's the crux of my comment really. Some have articles and have been deemed "notable" per Wikipedia standards, why not all the others? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A sea of red it is? ~ HAL333 22:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm just looking for consistency. And if you check out WP:WIAFL, you'll see that a list as a navigational aid is part of the criteria. You may need to make a few more articles! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

As I'm making these articles, it is becoming readily apparent why they didn't exist. There are barely any sources on them. Google and Jstor have next to nothing. ~ HAL333 20:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

So they're not particularly notable then? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll make a few more. It seems to be completely random which ones I can find info on. ~ HAL333 04:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• For year ranges with circa, please ensure you have it formatted per MOS:DATE.
• YPeace at Sunset source says c. 1827, not 1827 precisely. Suggest all are re-checked.

That's all I have, will be claiming WikiCup points etc etc for the review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorting of Medium and dimensions column

This has been brought up by multiple reviewers; however, I do not know how to tackle it. I'm not sure if sorting it by surface area would be feasible. What about the works which are circular, oval, and curved rectangles? Should I leave it as is (sorting by medium), or get rid of it all together. ~ HAL333 20:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I would separate medium and dimensions altogether into separate columns and then sort by longest dimension. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

@HAL333: - some of the dimensions are missing, is this because you are still in the process of adding them, or are they unknown......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't gotten to them yet. I'll be able to make some more progress this weekend. ~ HAL333 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, The Rambling Man, Aza24, Dank, Hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns. ~ HAL333 23:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Exciting to see a paintings list going through FL, I really don't think there are any at the moment. Will do a source review below: Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support (assuming TRM is satisfied). I did a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. Where I added "(1836)", "(1833–1836)" would be better if the first painting in the series was displayed in 1833. Excellent work. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing shortly Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• wrong date for ref 4 (and in the wrong place – or is that the template?)
• I would remove location from ref 6 since it's the only one with a location (needs ISBN as well)
• capitalize "Historic" in ref 8 (same in 65)
• capitalize "Memorial" in ref 13
• ref 26 is broken
• should probably have spaces in title of 45
• Would rather see LACMA spelled out (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) in ref 111 and 120
• ref 6 is the only ref without a retrieval date, although I'm not sure if this is just because it's a book
• That's all I got. Reliability looks good – nice to see a lot of referencing to the Museums themselves.

 Done I acted on everything except adding the access date to the book. ~ HAL333 19:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Splendid, great work here. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Alfredo Di Stéfano

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 14:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Alfredo Di Stéfano was one of the best footballers of all-time, and something of a rarity for playing for two international teams. Although he was highly successful at domestic level in Argentina, Colombia and Spain, he never quite reached the same peaks internationally. He score six goals in six games to help Argentina win the 1947 South American Championship, but that was the sum total of his international success. He never played in a World Cup or European Championship, and didn't really see eye-to-eye with his national team coach either. This list is modelled on those that have gone before, although I've had to improvise for how to include his two playing nations. I opted for one table including all his goals, rather than splitting it into two tables, but let me know what you think. As always, all input welcome. Harrias ^talk 14:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Link friendly to Exhibition match.
  • Linked in the prose, not sure if it is needed on every occasion in the table too, what do you reckon? Harrias ^talk 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Looking at similar lists, Zlatan Ibrahimovic for example, these tend to link all uses in the table. I don't think I'd argue for or against either way really, unless someone points out a compelling reason. Kosack (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Linked it throughout the table for consistency. Harrias ^talk 18:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• "Brian Glanville suggested that was unable to dictate play", something missing from here.
  • Added the missing word. Harrias ^talk 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Two very minor points I noticed on a quick run through. Kosack (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Kosack. Query above. Harrias ^talk 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy to support following the issues addressed her and in Chris' comments. Kosack (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

The opening sentence is incorrect, as he actually played for three national teams - he also played for Colombia. He didn't score any goals for Colombia, but it probably still needs to be mentioned...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree, ChrisTheDude. The opening sentence is 100% correct: it omits Colombia because the matches he played for them were unsanctioned. The lead makes passing reference to it for completeness, but it is not significant enough to be included in the opening sentence. Harrias ^talk 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I didn't realise that his matches for Colombia are not recognised as official internationals -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

More comments

• "He was twice named the Ballon d'Or winner" - I think "He was twice awarded the Ballon d'Or" would work better personally
  • Agreed, changed. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note a "The South American Championship was the predecessor to the Copa América." seems odd placed after "Di Stéfano made his international debut for Argentina in December 1947" given that the sentence makes no mention of the South American Championship
  • Oops, moved things around, and forgot to move the footnote. Sorted now. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks as always ChrisTheDude. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 13:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Added one publisher link – reliability is good and formatting is consistent. Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Standard WikiCup claim disclaimer

• Could link Association football positions to "set positions".
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• " He scored six goals, including..." too many run-on clauses for me here.
  • Split and rephrased slightly. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• "were not recognised" were not, or are not?
  • Are not: changed. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Did he score for Colombia?
  • No, but because these weren't official matches, it is difficult to find an RS that deals with them at all. Harrias ^talk 10:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• "He moved to Real Madrid in 1953" first mention of a domestic team, seems anomalous.
  • It is where he is most famous for playing, I don't think it is undue. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• "Santiago Bernabéu " is a disambiguation link.
  • Solved. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• "Of Di Stéfano's 37 goals" table says 29. And I think this information (along with apps) should appear much earlier in the lead.
  • Oops, fixed the 37 to 29. I think the placement of this summary is appropriate, but I have added , ..and scored 29 international goals during that time." to the first sentence, as you are right that his goal tally needs greater prominence. How is that? Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Sevilla is Seville in English.
  • Quite, changed. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Brussels is linked but Santiago isn't?
  • Unlinked Brussels, missed that one. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Blank cell for score against Wales.
  • How odd, added. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Glanville can be linked in the refs using authorlink.
  • Indeed, linked. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: How is it now? Harrias ^talk 10:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

List of descriptive plant epithets (I–Z)

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's get this show on the road. The other half of this list is at List of descriptive plant epithets (A–H), and yes, I got permission to nominate this half before the other half is finished ... but it's almost done. (I was advised at WP:VPT not to put the whole list on one page.) There are a lot of annoying little technical points to consider here; I've mentioned some of them on this list's talk page. Hopefully, when we get the annoying stuff out of the way, the end result will be fun and useful for a wide range of readers. Many thanks to Dudley Miles for FLC-specific input, and especially to all the great writers of plant species articles ... this list is largely an attempt to highlight their excellent work. This list tries to do a lot of different things at the same time ... maybe too many things for the typical Featured List. It's all good, and any effort that reviewers are willing to put into making this a better list will be appreciated, regardless of the outcome of this FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I just swapped in 10 cropped images created by PawełMM at the Graphics Lab ... beautiful work! - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We just finished List of descriptive plant epithets (A–H). - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Links to Glossary of botanical terms are all done now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Guerillero

The list is gorgeous. Very nicely done. A few thoughts

• Since you are using Stearn 2004 and Stearn 2002, you should probably include a year for at least that one in the sfn
• Why does only Coombes get a citation in the table?

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• • I'm really glad you liked it. I replaced "Stearn2" with "Stearn 2004" throughout; happy to make other replacements if required. All six of the main sources are (mainly) alphabetical glossaries or reference works, but Coombes alphabetizes by genus rather than by species, so readers will need page numbers to find the cites to the species. Everyone I asked was okay with leaving page numbers off for glossaries. A pageless citation to, say, Harrison wouldn't add any new information when we've already got an "H" column (which I can't take credit for thinking of ... that was Dudley's request). As a bonus (and this is in the footnotes), for those few places where a citation is necessary, the fact that the first 5 sources cited don't usually need page numbers means that the superscripts for those sources don't change, so readers who get familiar with the table will be able to tell who's being cited just by the number. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Another issue that we don't usually see at FLC is: if we add templates for every citation, then we might need to split this list into three pages instead of two pages, and no one wants that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mattximus

The lead needs some work. Leads in featured lists should not start with self-referential statements such as "This is the second half of a list" or include any mentions such as "this is a list of". A better opening sentence will include the definition explaining what descriptive plant epithets are and their purpose.

Thanks for your comments. Does this work for you as a first paragraph? If so, what are you looking for in a second paragraph? "Since the first printing of Carl Linnaeus's Species Plantarum in 1753, plant species have been assigned one epithet (name) for the species and one for their genus (a grouping of related species). These scientific names have been studied and catalogued by a variety of botanists, including William Stearn. Stearn (1911–2001) was one of the pre-eminent British botanists of the 20th century: a Librarian of the Royal Horticultural Society, a president of the Linnean Society and the original drafter of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants." 01:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I made the change (with a slight modification). Let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Some concerns are "ianthinus" which is not in any reference, so it is unreferenced? How do we know you've included all unreferenced names? Mattximus (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Part of the answer is my last comment before your section: the page is already so large that it may not load for some readers. If we add templates for every citation, repetitively, all the way down the page, then we might need to split this list into three pages instead of two pages, and no one wants that. One thing I can do that may help is to move the sentence about Gledhill being a reference for every row back up from the footnotes; I'll do that now. So, every row in the table has at least two sources: Stearn's Dictionary, and Gledhill. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• My main query is that I found the explanation of what the list covers confusing, and after reading the lead several times I am still confused about your sources. In paragraph 2 you say that all species epithets come from Stearns' dictionary, in para 3 that Gledhill's book is the source for all species epithets in column 1. You are not allowed to start the article "This is a list...", but I think you need to start the second or third para with something like "The article covers descriptive epithets for plant species listed in (sources)"
  • I'll be more precise about Gledhill and make an edit to deal with your next point; I think those two edits may fix the problem. - Dank (push to talk)
• "All species epithets in the following list come from Stearn's Dictionary, except for words following "from" (which are related words from Classical Latin) and epithets following "Cf."" This is confusing as all cases of "from" or "Cf." are in the meaning column, not the epithet one. Presumably you mean alternative epithets given in the meaning column?
  • Great suggestion. In the original version, I had to do it that way because there were a lot of epithets from Stearn in the 3rd column and in the footnotes; I missed the fact that there are now none in the footnotes and only a few in the 3rd column. I've just made a few edits in the 3rd column along the lines of "Stearn lists ...", so now I can change the wording in the intro to what you're looking for (I think). - Dank (push to talk)
• "this excludes all genus epithets" I think it would be better to leave this out and just say that it is a list of species epithets.
• The query by Mattximus about unreferenced items could be dealt with by adding a citation to Gledhill's The Names of Plants to the Epithets heading.
• "Links to species". "Links to" in this heading is superfluous.
• "Contents:" I think this should be above the key.
  • I don't follow; I don't know how to split {{Compact ToC}} into two pieces. I had it above the Key section originally, and you asked me to move it down. - Dank (push to talk)

• Ah I had not seen Compact TOC done that way before. My point is that it seems to me more logical to have a contents for the whole article, not just for a few sections. You can do this by deleting "|seealso=yes |notes=yes" and adding at the end of the lead __FORCETOC__. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• You should give the issn for Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society.
• This is an impressive list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. I have done or am about to do everything you asked for, except as noted. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am not clear why the key has "cited to" instead of "cited in"
• You seem to have deleted the explanation that H and S columns are not referenced because the works are in alphabetical order. You could add this as citations to the headings.
• As many of the items in the Meaning column are additional epithets, you might consider changing the heading to "Meaning and additional epithets". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• All done (see if you agree). - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Still one niggle. I do not think it is helpful to readers to explain under a note to C why references are not supplied for H and S. (Also why use efn suffixes (such as efn-ur) to give note 1 and then the other notes as i to vi?). You could have a note to H: {{efn|name=source|References are not supplied for Harrison's ''Latin for Gardeners'' and Stearn's ''Botanical Latin'' as the entries are in alphabetical order.}} Adding a note to S {{efn|name=source}} would make one note for both. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is a disability issue (of sorts), and I'm not going to budge on this. Making multiple single-letter columns wider than they need to be, for no real gain, makes complicated tables ugly at best, especially for those of us who need a zoom of at least 120%. The C column is already wider than one letter because of the superscripts, so that's a better choice for where to put the footnote. It's not far from the H and S columns ... it's not like readers who would see a footnote next to the H or S are going to miss it next to the C ... and it's just as relevant to the C column. If you don't like it there, we could put it anywhere else, but not in the H or S column. And even in the C column, "iii" won't work; that would widen the column. I switched to upper-case footnotes for that to make it an "I". I could live with other options, including "γ", but probably not "iii". - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I thoroughly disagree with your last comment, but we can agree to disagree on that. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "those that he doesn't cover verbatim" => "those that he does not cover verbatim"
• Why does the contents table go all the way from A to Z when the article only covers I to Z?
  • It's one list across two pages. Click and see! - Dank (push to talk)
• I would put note D in the column header rather than against the first asterisk
• "Cyperus imbecillis,* Agrostis imbecilla*" - should that first asterisk be before the comma?
  • Well, it's less than ideal, so I've moved the ones with asterisks to the last position throughout. - Dank (push to talk)
• This also occurs in a few other places
• "Illustration of Epacris impressa" seems to be missing/not displaying. Don't know if this is a Commons issue?
• Same for quite a few of the others
  • All of the images are coming up for me, but on a few occasions, I've had to refresh to get them all. For anyone who's wondering why this very long list is split across two pages ... this is an example of what can go wrong. It would be worse if I combined the two pages into one.
• "Fatty; oily" - random first capital, none of the others have one
• Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, all done. Sorry about the very long list ... most of my plant lists will be a breeze compared to this page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - still can't get all the images to load but I'll accept that's a technical issue rather than a defect with the quality of the article itself..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Chris. Please let me know if the problem persists. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• If you're going to link Infobase Publishing and Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society I would link University of Chicago Press (which should be without the "the"), Cassell (publisher), Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press
• The ISBN 13s should either be without any dashes or with all of them. At the moment they're all missing one dash, they should have 4 in each. The 4th dash should be after the 4th digit (e.g. Coombes: 978-1-6046-91962). I'm fairly certain that's the rule but if you need to check you can use the converter to convert to ISBN 10 and then convert them back to ISBN 13 where the 4th dash will be filled in.
• Would also link Smithsonian Institution Press in further reading and tweak ISBNs like above
• Reliability and rest of formatting looks good. Aza24 (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks much. I removed the links to Infobase and the journal, and removed all ISBN and ISSN hyphens. If that works for you, then everything's done, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Lol that is one way to do it – I mean I guess I expected you to just link and add the hyphens but removing the links/hyphens entirely is also a acceptable solution. (Consistent formatting is what's important) Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Thx again. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 23:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury Award

Nominator(s): PresN 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Way back in 2012, I took the then-five categories of the Nebula Awards through FLC, following the 15+ lists on scifi/fantasy awards I'd already done. At the time, I thought I was done, but now not only has the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America SFWA started a new category for game writing, which I was waiting to get to a decent length before nominating, they've gone and retroactively made their two "not an official category" categories into official categories. So, I've got some lists to polish up, and here's the first: the Ray Bradbury Nebula Award for Outstanding Dramatic Presentation, now with "Nebula" stuck into the name to make it extra-official. It's a bit of an odd award- unlike the other categories that got voted on, the president of SFWA just gave it out to whatever 4 times in 17 years, and when SFWA retired the Best Script category they converted it to the "normal" process but left it as a separate thing form the regular categories. They also give it to the "primary" "director and writer(s)", which don't always match the screen credits (and the past couple of years they've just said "writer" even if the person also directed). Until this year, like I said, when they decided it was official (not with anything so crass as a public announcement, but just by changing the rules to say it was official and telling former winners that they counted). Anyway, here it is- it's modeled heavily on the existing 5 Nebula FLs, as well as the other 20+ SFF award lists I did between 2010 and 2016, so hopefully the format is still solid. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Consider noting that "short miniseries of no more than three connected episodes" may be nominated per reference 1

• added

• Reference 6 is not great for this specific award (applies more directly to the Andre Norton Award) – if possible, find a better source

• Frustratingly, I can't- they never made an announcement, even on their own blog. They just... renamed the award, and updated the rules.

• While the listed sources indicate that the award was not originally a Nebula Award, they do not directly indicate that the name was changed from "Ray Bradbury Award…" to "Ray Bradbury Nebula Award…"; consider finding a source for this

• See above; I've added a source to the archived rules page from June 2019 where the old name was used

• Citation needed to explain the changes in 2010 following the retirement of the Nebula Award for Best Script – check other article for sources (this one seems pretty good)

• Added

• Rules in second paragraph are from 2011 and do not align with the current Nebula website

Oh for stars' sake, would it kill them to actually announce these changes outside of their internal mailing list? Fixed, and now I have to go fix all the other lists too; apparently they tweaked rules for the nominations dates in 2017.

• Reference 7 seems moot, as the award was only regularly awarded after the rules change, but I'm torn as to whether or not you should remove it. A second opinion here would be nice.

• I left it (and the pre-2009 rules text it supports) there specifically because of the 3 "selected" winners that would have been before the rules change; assuming we count Babylon 5 from the main series air date (Jan 26, 1994) and not the test pilot airing (Feb 22, 1993) it didn't apply to any of them so I'm easily persuaded to drop it.

• Sources used for awards do not appear to be entirely accurate – for instance, reference 14 omits Orci and Kurtzman as nominees for Star Trek and Doctor and McCarthy for Up, while reference 21 includes Rich Moore and Jared Bush as nominees. Find better sources or use the SFWA's website (i.e. for 2010, consider using this link for the source).

• I can't replace Locus because I need to cite something that's not SFWA itself to justify that the subject matters; I used SFWA's site to actually get the names/positions and so missed the discrepancies. Added SFWA's pages as secondary sources, as I believe them to be more authoritative, although this is the first time I've ever seen a data issue with Locus so I don't know what caused it.

• • Follow-up: After rereading the document, I noticed reference 11, which seems to be more accurate. However, because of its position, it doesn't seem like the source for the entire table. Is this what you're using for your source? If so, I don't know why you've included the other references that contradict it.
• Reference 12 does not mention the Ray Bradbury Award at all

• Dropped in favor of citing SFWA directly

• 2010 nominees should include Moon

• Fixed

• 2013 nominees should include The Hunger Games

• Fixed

• Alphabetize 2010 and 2019 nominees to align with other years' entries

• Done

• SFWA's website lists Paramount as publisher for How to Train Your Dragon, not DreamWorks

• Fixed

• Remove teleplay note for "AKA Smile"

• Fixed

• Drew Goddard wrote The Martian, not Lawrence Kasdan

• Fixed

• James Gilroy is not a writer for Logan; James Mangold should be credited as director and writer

• Fixed

• Italicize Good Omens in infobox

• Fixed

• Consider adding sort function to Creators and Publishers columns

• Done for publishers; I've not done this for creators in this and similar lists because a) it gives the weight to the director (that's listed first) over the other creators and b) it gets weird when SFWA only lists writers- the sorting, as a result, is not predictable by readers in the same way sorting by title or year is.

Overall, the formatting and lead seem solid, but the referencing is shaky and needs to be seriously overhauled. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Finally got to this; my sincere apologies for taking so long (covid+work+homeschooling wiped out my energy for big tasks on wiki). Apologies also for the amount of work- this was an incredibly thorough review, and I'm frankly embarrassed that you found some of these fairly severe problems with the list. Thank you so much for doing so and finding these flaws. I've responded inline, but hopefully everything is fixed now. --PresN 03:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Support — The edits look good and are well integrated into the article; thank you for addressing them! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional note: I'm not changing my decision to support; this is just something to consider. If you need non-SFWA sources, there are options from other websites for recent years (for instance: 2020, 2019, 2018, another 2018, and 2017). These sources could replace Lotus, as they seem to be more accurate. Even if you can't find sources going all the way back to the earliest awards, I would be okay with some years using secondary sources and the rest using SFWA sources. This would establish that the award is meaningful while ensuring the citations are valid. Again, this is just something to consider; the call here is yours. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
• I'm confused by the lack of an asterisk in the 2001 row.

• Fixed

• FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The prose looks good.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present. For this review, I'm not taking a position on the points raised 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. It doesn't use images, but I'm weak in that area so I don't have an opinion.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • The table coding looks good. Some people prefer to avoid redirects for names of people and companies (for instance, Warner Bros. Domestic Television redirects to Warner Bros. Television Studios). I'll be happy to go through the table avoiding such redirects if you like.
• Support, with the caveat that I'm not taking a position on things the previous reviewer said. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Reliability is good, based on the reliance on a few sources. Formatting good as well – Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Mexican/Mexican-American Album

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is fact checked and part of a project for the Grammy Award list; is been a while since I have started working on it, and now thanks to the assistance of @Another Believer and Magiciandude: I finally present it for nomination. I will be following closely all your comments. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref for all the name changes in the category's history?

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• "most awarded performer" => "most-awarded performer"

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• It seems like for much of the award's history it could be given to either an individual song or an album - maybe clarify/mention this?

The first years of the award they did that, but there is no reference to explain this other than the nominations list, that would be enough?. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• For English-language awards, we would expect any title that starts with "The" to sort based on the next word, so I would say that the same should apply here to any title or band name starting with La/Los/etc.

Fixed.Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jaespinoza: - let me know when you get a chance to make the other changes and I will re-visit..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I did some of the changes, I will wait for your re-visit. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

I'll be back to do a source review but some drive by issues:

• The "note" in the year column, doesn't go to anything? Presumably it meant to go to the same place as the note in Grammy Award for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• There are no refs for the entire second paragraph of the lead and it's not covered anywhere else... Aza24 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comments:
• Would link The Daily Gazette Company and Deseret News Publishing Company

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the locations from refs 10 and 11, or you have to add locations to the rest

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• 17 missing link to Los Angeles Times

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Everything else is good but the two points at the top still remain extant Aza24 (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping @Jaespinoza: Aza24 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Aza24:. Thank you. I am working on your comments. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Looks much better now. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Didn't spot any issues with this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of the 2010s in Romania

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows the path of its FL preecessor, List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of 2009 in Romania. This list is longer, though, so comments are kindly appreciated :) Wishing a great day, Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Just pinging some users on this: @Aoba47, MarioSoulTruthFan, and Paparazzzi:. They can decide whether they leave appreciated comments or not. This nomination didn't get any attention sadly. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from MarioSoulTruthFan

• Support MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• Photo caption - "Smiley (pictured) and Carla's Dreams both had eight songs listed as the most-broadcast ones on radio and television" => "Smiley (pictured) and Carla's Dreams both had eight songs listed as the most-broadcast on radio and television"
• "They are based on the number of times tracks are broadcast" => "Chart placings are based on the number of times tracks are broadcast"
• "The first were [....] in January 2010." - well obviously the first number ones of the 2010s were in January 2010, so I don't think you need to say that
• "this feat was achieved by Carla's Dreams's "Luna" with a total of 15 weeks" - although technically correct, "Carla's Dreams's" looks really weird, so maybe change to "achieved by "Luna" by Carla's Dreams"
• "The latter artist and Smiley had the most songs to be listed as the most-broadcast ones" => "The latter artist and Smiley had the most songs to be listed as the most-broadcast"
• "Kiss FM, Pro FM and Virgin Radio Romania were the trendsetting radio stations" - what does this mean? In what way were they trendsetting?

According to Media Forest, this means that the respective radio station was the first one to broadcast a song (that would become a radio hit eventually and receive support from other radio stations too) on heavy rotation. Any idea how we could formulate this?

After giving it some thought, I think I would say "Kiss FM, Pro FM and Virgin Radio Romania were the radio stations that gave the first airplay to the highest number of songs which went on to top the chart" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• You don't need to say "(pictured)" in each photo caption unless it's unclear who is pictured e.g. in the Lady Gaga caption you don't need to say "Lady Gaga (pictured)" because obviously it's her. It is needed, though, in captions like ""Ecou" by Elena Gheorghe (pictured) and rapper Glance...." to clarify which one of the two she is
• "In 2013, Andra (pictured) contributed with two singles to that year's most-broadcast ones on television: "Inevitabil va fi bine" and "K la meteo"." - the English here is rather odd. I would just say "In 2013, Andra had two singles which were the most-broadcast on television: "Inevitabil va fi bine" and "K la meteo"."
• Think that's it from me - good work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your review! I implemented everything and answered to your question. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: So I actually took a look at another ref and they seem to be clearer there: "The title of 'TRENDSETTER 2019' is designated to the radio station that broadcast the songs that reached No. 1 in the MediaForest Weekly Charts the most during 2019." With that in mind, I added things to the sentence in the lead. Hope it's fine now. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from MaranoFan

Given that the first three comments I left at the peer review have not been addressed.--NØ 03:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: I have addressed your comments. However, I do have a comment on your second one: I prefer using "the top ten most broadcast Romanian and foreign songs" over "the top ten most broadcast songs" because I want to stress the fact that there are two different charts for both radio and television airplay that list the Romanian and foreign songs separately. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part, "around 100 singles each were listed", is there a reason why a specific number cannot be provided?

I purely think this is not needed. We would have different total numbers for both the radio and television charts, and everything would result in a wordy sentence. Wordier than some of the article already is due to the subject matter ahaha. I think an approximation is the good way to go in this case. Also, I've been doing this for my other Romanian chart FLs too. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is more of a personal preference, but I would avoid using "latter" as done here, "The latter band and Smiley", and just say "Carla's Dream and Smiley". Your current wording is not wrong, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention to think about. Feel free to disregard this if you prefer the current wording.

This actually makes a lot of sense, thank you for pointing that out.

Everything seems to have already been addressed by the above reviewers. I just have a clarification question and a more stylistic suggestion. Otherwise, great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you very much for your comments, I left replies. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

• I went ahead and linked the unlinked publishers
• Reliability and formatting looks great, pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum

Nominator(s): PK743 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2017 Indian drama film Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members, especially Fahadh Faasil, several awards and nominations. I hope to receive constructive comments to improve this list. PK743 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your comments and support appreciate it. PK743 (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Nicely done. ~ HAL333 15:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: Thanks for your support appreciate it. PK743 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support My concerns have been addressed. Good work overall. --Ab207 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ab207: Thanks for your support appreciate it.PK743 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

• Refs 2, 3, 4, 6, 14 need authors

Updated authors in the mentioned refs.

• The AP herald link was not redirecting to its main page like the user above said – for me at least

Replaced it with a new source.

• Ref 20 should have a "|language=Malayalam" parameter, not the "in Malayalam" outside of the ref template

Resolved the error and added language inside template.

• Reliability looks ok – AP Herald is not on the WP:ICTFSOURCES list as far as I can see Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As the link is broken and redirecting to Indian Herald replaced it with Firstpost Article.

• @PK743: Courtesy ping for nominator who may have missed these and the above comments Aza24 (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Thanks for your comments. PK743 (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Good work! Pass for source review.

• Support – My concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Xevious media

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the most-beloved arcade games and most important titles in the scrolling shooter genre, Namco's Xevious become a cultural phenomenon since its debut in January 1983. In addition to laying the foundations for most other shooters since, Xevious was followed by merchandise, soundtrack albums, home conversions, and a series of sequels and re-imaginings that built on mechanics established in the original. While the series has yet to see a new installment since Xevious Resurrection in 2009, the game still remains an important and influential franchise in Namco's back catalog of properties.

This article is a comprehensive list of all Xevious sequels, spin-offs, and other related forms of media (such as soundtracks and films); all information here is cited from reliable sources. I had created this article way back in September of 2017, and to be blunt it was a poorly-created wreck of a page. Only now have I decided to get this article into shape and hopefully make it a Featured List. This is part of my goal in getting the entire Xevious series up to Good Topic status, which I hope to achieve some day. Thank you for reviewing! Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Link pachinko in the lead for those (including me) who have no idea what it is
• Notes which are complete sentences (eg the third and fourth against the original game) need full stops
• Link rail-shooter to explain that term
• Also, is it possible to clarify what a "flight yolk controller" is?
• "which was corrected" - as the subject of this clause is "issues", the "was" should be "were"
• "A 75-minute "gaiden" film" - link/explanation for "gaiden"?
• Think that's it from me. Great work overall :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Issues addressed. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Think you may have got a bit over-zealous with the full stop removal :-) "The Sharp X68000 version was produced by Dempa" for example, is a complete sentence and needs one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I tidied up the full stops and made a couple of other minor tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

For FAC coordinators, I have chosen to retire from the site. Please close this nomination as soon as possible. Thanks. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 19:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• @WP:FLC director and delegates: Pinging the delegates and directors to see your message. GamerPro64 22:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW I wouldn't mind taking this over for Namcokid if that's alright with the coords. I just don't want to see all their hard work go to waste. JOEBRO64 22:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    • TheJoebro64 I'm fine with you adopting the nomination. Having said that, Namcokid47 I'm sorry to see you leave. Take care. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Really sad to see Namcokid47 go... I have no idea how I missed the source review for this one, I'll do it in later today. Aza24 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 7 and 10 should be an ISBN 13 (use the converter)
• Would take out "United Kingdom" in ref 15 as it is the only location provided in all of the refs – otherwise all of the refs should have locations
• Translated title needed for ref 18
• ref 27 shouldn't be all caps per MOOS
• Wired link in 31
• translated title needed for ref 67
• GamePro link in 72
• Tokyo Broadcasting System
• That's all I got. Reliability looks fine. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping for @TheJoebro64: Aza24 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aza24: I'll get through this later tonight. I'll send you a ping when it's done. JOEBRO64 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aza24: all sorted out. JOEBRO64 01:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in the Netherlands

Nominator(s): Tone 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

With the successful promotion of Lithuania and the nomination of Sweden going well, it's time we move to the new region. The Netherlands has quite some sites, and some are overseas. I'm not sure if the layout of the two maps it optimal but we can play with that. The rest of the list follows the standard style. Tone 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Surely the Netherlands and Curacao should be linked in the lead?
• Could do with an explanation in the lead of Curacao's status
• "The first site added to the list was Schokland and Surroundings, in 1995" - no reason for that comma
• There's an unnecessary gap before ref 2
• "It was an inhabited peninsula since pre-historic times" => "It is a peninsula which had been inhabited since prehistoric times"
• "It is the only fortification....." - in the Netherlands? The whole world?
• "draininig the water from the polders" - first word is spelt wrong
• "Construction of hydraulic began" - hydraulic what? There's at least one word missing here
• "Willemstad was established as a trading settlement by the people" => "Willemstad was established as a trading settlement by people". Is there a more specific word than "people"? Were they merchants?
• "which reflect the mix of Dutch cultural influences with those of Spanish and Portuguese" => "which reflect the mix of Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese cultural influences"
• " large sections of the population of Low Countries" => " large sections of the population of the Low Countries"
• "and, under the supervision of Johannes van den Bosch constructed" - need a comma after Bosch to close off the clause
• "combination of education, healthcare and (forced) labour" - earlier you used US English spelling "-ize", so you should change the spelling of the last word to match this
• "to ensure the self-sufficiecy" - spelt wrong
• "They were run on slave labour" - same note re: US spelling
• "Curaçao is a constitute country" - penultimate word is spelt wrong
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: I'm through, sorry it took a while. All fixed. I got rid of the footnotes (from some previous versions) as I could get everything to the lead. --Tone 20:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Given that all of the sources, other than 3, are UNESCO sources everything looks good. The other 3 are reliable and formatted correctly, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - sorry I forgot to revisit this one for so long...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Andriy Shevchenko

Nominator(s): KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the third international goals list that I am looking to become featured. Although I do not support any of the clubs he played at, Shevchenko is one of my favorite players to watch from the 2000s. I have expanded the sources and the prose, and I am looking for whatever details I need for it to become featured considering it already passes WP:FL?. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack

• I'm not sure association footballer really works, it should either be association football player or just professional footballer.
• The lead is a bit light on info, and there is only 1074b of prose. With 48 goals to his name, there must be some notable goals worthy of inclusion?
• I don't know if it's perhaps a mobile issue, but the date column doesn't sort correctly for me.
• Why aren't the score columns sortable?
• eu-football.info has been called into question in previous FLCs, so I'd prepare a backup source if possible for those.
• AFS Enterprises is the publisher of 11v11.com.

A rough pass over to pick out the most obvious issues I could see to get started. Kosack (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisTheDude

• Agree the lead is short and could do with being beefed up
• 2nd should be written as second
• "a UEFA Euro 2012 group stage match against Sweden, which they would win 2–1" - unclear which team won
• "He decided to retire from international football after their final match" => again, clarify who "they" are
• "It ended with a 1–0 loss for the Ukraine" => "It ended with a 1–0 loss for Ukraine"
• I also can't make the date column sort correctly (or indeed at all)
• Locations (stadia, cities) which appear more than once should be linked each time, because if you re-sort the table based on another field, the linked listing may not be the first.
• Caption of the second image is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
• The refs to UEFA.com don't seem to support the relevant info. For example, ref 42 just goes to a page listing the reults of all games in Euro 2012 and doesn't even mention Shevchenko
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@KingSkyLord:, it's been a month since I commented above and I can't see that the points have been tackled, are you still working on this one.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Yes. I am just very busy at the moment since summer ended. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I made some changes, can you @ChrisTheDude: and @Kosack: please revisit and update your comments? Thanks -Cheetah (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Good work so far. My remaining comments would be that the lead still looks very "thin" at just 1075 characters (far too short for DYK), and some of the rows are referenced to UEFA.com pages which don't support the relevant information (e.g. the final two goals are referenced to a page which simply lists all the final scores from Euro 2012 and therefore doesn't confirm the date, the stadium, or for that matter the fact that Shevchenko scored the goals.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Refs 3 and 4 missing authors
• Ref 5 missing author and date (scroll to the bottom)
• Refs 1–5 missing retrieval dates
• If you're going to link RSSSF the you should link BBC sport and UEFA – doesn't look like the rest of publishers/works/websites have WP pages
• Reliability is fine, statistical information from statistical websites. Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping for @KingSkyLord: in case they have missed these comments. Aza24 (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Aza24, I think I fixed your concerns. Please take another look. Thanks! Cheetah (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Rhondda Cynon Taf

Nominator(s): EdwardUK (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... with Grade I buildings in Wales being those of "exceptional interest" it seemed a worthwhile subject to be improved to a high quality, and a recent peer review suggested it was close to level required. As a first attempt at a featured list this specific topic was chosen as it had such a limited scope and with the intention that feedback and experience gained can be used for improving similar but longer lists. EdwardUK (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hog Farm

Will be claimed for wikicup points

• "Newman 1995, pp. 434-5, 521." - Spell out 435 here.
• Add a short description
• "In 1746 Edward Williams was employed" - Comma after 1746
• Link River Taff
• " In 1746 Edward Williams was employed to build a bridge over the River Taff. The 27-year-old self-taught architect had gained a reputation for the quality of his stonemasonry but this was his first bridge. His three-arched design lasted less than three years before being washed away in a flood when the build-up of debris around the piers caused the flow of the river to be obstructed" - The cited page range is 73 to 78, but pages 73 and 74 don't seem to contribute any of the material from this, so they should be dropped from the page range.

• done - also changed url to match

• "Following this Edwards rebuilt the" - Comma after this
• Check on Worldcat to see if Smiles has an OCLC

• done - also added volume details

• ") to connect the industry to the docks at Cardiff, both of these passed through Pontypridd contributing to its development into a major market town" - semicolon instead of the comma, and add a comma after Pontypridd
• "and by 1875 when the Hetty shaft was sunk at Hopkinstown the population of Pontypridd had reached 8,000" - "when the Hetty shaft was sunk at Hopkinstown" is an appositive, and should be set off by commas.
• "In 1981 only 35 mines remained in Wales " - Comma after 1981
• For the date listed and the reference number in the table, use an intext citation so it's more obvious where the information is coming from, rather than linking the reference number to the external source.

• part done - added to date listed, but not changed reference number

• "In addition to being Grade I listed Pontypridd" - Comma after listed
• "1791-95" MOS:DATERANGE wants 1791–1795
• "Located on the west side of Hopkinstown the Hetty Engine House" - Comma after Hopkinstown
• The note needs a citation.

• done - I think this should cover it as there wasn't one that I could take from the standard templates.

Once these are addressed, I'll take another look at it. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have made all the changes except for replacing the external link in the "Reference Number" column with an inline citation as this is consistent with all the other UK listed building and scheduled monument lists, also had I used the {{Cadw listed building row}} template it would have been linked automatically. Note that I chose not to use the header and row templates for reasons mentioned in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire/archive1 - because the "Function" column and the image upload and commonscat links are undesirable, and it forces the text to be centre aligned. Thanks for the comments. EdwardUK (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That should work. I'm ready to support this one, although others are likely to have additional comments. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Support by KJP1

Placeholder - shall get to this on the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Commented at the peer review, and the list has only improved further since then. A few minor comments/suggestions but nothing to stand in the way of my support.

• In two points in the lead, mention is made of South Wales. In the opening sentence, it's "the south of Wales", and in the fourth para. it's "there were 620 mines in south Wales". I think it should be capitalised (?), and I wonder if South Wales would help the reader, probably at first mention, i.e., "a county borough in South Wales". Incidentally, I think the lead now nicely contextualises the article.

• changed opening to South Wales and moved link to Wales to later in section

• 3rd para. - "In 1746, Edward Williams was employed" - you've flipped his names, from William Edwards. An easy thing to do! Will also need changing (x2) in the 6th sentence of this para.
• 3rd para. - "which used circular holes through the haunches reduce the load". First, I think there's a missing "to" after haunches. Second, is "haunches" a bit specialist for the general reader? "through the two ends of the arch"?

• changed - I chose "haunches" as this was used by Coflein and Newman (Cadw uses "spandrels"), but think that the simplified version is better.

• Bibliography - you could authorlink Newman and Smiles.
• Bibliography - You could also, for consistency, give the url for Glamorgan. As an aside re. the url for Hughes, I've had editors complain about links to Google Books, as it's seen as favouring a commercial site. Therefore, unless the url gives a snippet, I tend to use Worldcat. That said, there are very respected editors who loathe any url links at all, so it's merely a suggestion.

• Added Worldcat for Newman, and inline page-url for Hughes – for online book sources I usually give the url for where I read it (google, archive.org or others) to make it easier for verification, but with Newman I used a print copy and some of the referenced pages not visible online.

• Criteria - It looks to me that it meets all 6 criteria.

Pleased to Support. Great to see the lists of Welsh listed buildings being developed. KJP1 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

All changes made. Thanks - EdwardUK (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• All images are free and compliant with MOS:IMAGELOC. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Would link Historic England (ref 3), Cadw (refs 4, 6, 7, 12, 18, 20, 23, 25) and The Independent
• Are you sure that "The National Archives" is the publisher for ref 5? A lot of countries probably have a "National Archives" so surely the full name is different?
• When ever you have pp. with two numbers you should use an em dash " – " rather than a hyphen/minus sign "-" (small difference but this is the standard – is already done correctly in ref 17 anyways)
• Newman in the biblio needs isbn 13 (use the converter)
• Reliability is good – mostly government websites or those with statistical info Aza24 (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• All changes made – I have added a link for The National Archives and this appears to be the full name. EdwardUK (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ah I see, well the link should be enough to avoid any confusion. Good work here – pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Mahesh Babu filmography

Nominator(s): Ab207 (talk) and MSG17 (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Mahesh Babu is an Indian actor who is currently one of the most famous male leads in Telugu cinema. Over the past couple of months, both of us have put significant work into the article, which included reworking the lead and citations as well as changing the table's structure. I think that it now fits the criteria and is ready to be reviewed. MSG17 (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC) (PS: This is our first FL nomination for either of us.)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: No major issues (maybe redirects and inconsistent film spellings can be fixed like Rajakumarudu, but that's your choice). Do call me when nominating other film lists for FLC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've fixed the spelling and look for others, if any. --Ab207 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 4 has no date and an incorrect title?

Accessdate and date were mixed up, fixed this and title

• The Times of India should ideally be linked every time (ref 5 and 9, 29 for example)

Fixed

• Link these as well: Vogue India, Oneindia, Firstpost, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Hindustan Times, International Business Times, The Hans India, Zee News, Idlebrain.com, Rediff, Bangalore Mirror

Fixed

• Ref 11 should have "The Times of India" and should be under "|work="

Fixed

• Ref 12 seems to be the wrong date

Fixed

• Ref 25 should be The Times of India

Fixed

• Ref 35 and 39 appear to be the same ref

Fixed

• Why is Ref 38 (the Youtube video) even here?
• In fact why are any of these videos here?
• Refs 56–58 is missing the authors

Fixed, sorry Radhika Rajamani!

• Since you're not including staff writers for the other refs, "India, The Hans" (which shouldn't even be formatted like that) should be ommited

Fixed

• Reliability looks ok, rest of the refs are good Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I have now addressed most of them. As for the YouTube videos, they are links to the film themselves when no other source has character names. I did this after looking at other FLs, such as the filmographies of Suriya, Vijay and MGR, that also used links the same way. MSG17 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Upon looking further in WP:ICTFSOURCES, Idlebrain.com does not seem to be a reliable source and should be replaced. Aza24 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Mostly done Except for one instance where the source is an exclusive interview. --Ab207 (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Puri Jagannadh's action-thriller Pokiri - can we reword to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Same with: psychological thriller 1: Nenokkadine and drama film Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• failed to make back its budget - quite an informal way to say this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Changer to "failed to recover". Better? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sea of blue at Koratala Siva's political film Bharat Ane Nenu . Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed

• Do we need a note to say it's two characters they played? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because he has also played a characters with multiple personalities/names. It is standard practice for Indian filmographies due to the high amount of films where the lead actor plays multiple roles. MSG17 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Is the unreleased yellow part of the MOS? A dagger on its own would be fine for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Not mentioned at WP:FILMOGRAPHY but retained to maintain consistency with other FLs, Scarlett Johansson on screen and stage, Jake Gyllenhaal filmography for instance. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Happy to pass Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Sweden

Nominator(s): Tone 19:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So, this is the last from the set of UNESCO lists from Northern Europe, and it is also the longest (probably this is the reason this came last...) Style is consistent with other lists, text usually gets some polishing during the nomination. Thank you in advance for comments. Tone 19:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support – I made two minor tweaks and everything now checks out fine. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

• The listing for the Royal Domain still uses the word "ensemble" without explaining it. I have literally no idea what the word means in this context.
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Wow, huuuuge whitespace in the lead. Not a good start. Any way of addressing that?
• "As of 2016" why 2016? That's really "as of 2020". Especially curious as that source has an accessdate of 2011!
• "has one property" strange wording, why not "one site"?
• " still-functioning Theatre, a" we've had this before, in this context Theatre shouldn't be capitalised. Fine to capitalise it if you're using its full formal title, but not here, looks odd.
• "The architecture of the ensemble can be viewed as the legacy of the influences of the Palace of Versailles" according to whom?
• " Saint Ansgar" put Saint inside the link.
• "the central function" what's that?
• "They reveal the life and beliefs of people who made them," again, according to whom? Reads a little like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedic treatment of the topic.
• 1917–20 -> 1917–1920 per MOS.
• " in the Baltic from" region?
• "resulted in unique adaptations." such as?
• Kvarken has two dates per the official site, 2000 and 2006, why isn't that reflected here?
• I would expect some reference to the trans-national nature of Kvarken in its notes section.
• "The most striking feature" guidebook.
• "antenna" is a dab.
• " Biology *" previous trans-national sites didn't have a space between their name and the asterisk.
• Refs 3 and 15 have spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.
• "World Heritage Sites in Sweden" template, several redirects which shouldn't really be in a navigational template.

That's about all I have, this is a WikiCup review by the way. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I'm through! Thanks for the comments. The white space at the intro is due to the vertical geography of Sweden. I could omit the break but that would mess with the table setting on some screens. Regarding Kvarken, the expansion is mentioned in the description, the year in the table is when the Swedish property was listed (for Finland article, I used 2006). A bunch of "guidebook" wording is from the source, but I changed to more neutral nevertheless. Sometimes the UNESCO descriptions are over-hyped. Thanks for spotting some issues that I missed earlier. --Tone 14:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with that huge whitespace and very short lead. The other issues are satisfactorily resolved. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I know. The lead is about the length of other lists that were promoted, but the image makes it look short. I don't have a good solution here, without repeating the content of the list. --Tone 09:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now. I'll try to come back later for additional comments on the prose to get this nomination moving. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 9 could do with some kind of identifier. Url, doi, JSTOR number, oclc or ISSN (although I'm not sure journals have these two)
• Ref 10 needs ISBN 13 (use the converter)
• OUP really should be spelled out as Oxford University Press
• Given that so many sources are Unesco, reliability is fine. The other 3 are good as well. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aza24: done! @The Rambling Man: could you check my fixes from the previous round? --Tone 15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Good work, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

List of medieval churches on Gotland

Nominator(s): Yakikaki (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and would be an interesting addition; there are some featured lists about churches, but mostly in the UK. I should also briefly explain the background to the article. I started a List of churches on Gotland back in 2014. Recently, I put in a lot of efforts on my sandbox2 to increase the quality. Noting how the medieval churches are almost always treated apart from the other churches on Gotland I figured it would sense to put them in their own, clearly defined list. Hence the list looks completely new. Yakikaki (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support All of my comments were addressed - nice work. If you have the time, I would really appreciate if you could check one of my FLCs (here or there). Thanks! ~ HAL333 22:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Shearonink

• Found a small typo - The church was pillaged by Russian tropps in 1717. should be The church was pillaged by Russian troops in 1717. Shearonink (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, fixed it! Yakikaki (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki Just an aside to the FLC...these ancient churches look very similar to Lutheran churches that I've seen in Minnesota and North Dakota...it was eerie to me to see these ca1300-1500 churches looking like close architectural cousins to churches built 1870-1920 in the US. Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink That's interesting, I think a lot of Swedish people emigrated at least to Minnesota, and many people emigrated from Gotland. Perhaps they brought with them some memories, who knows? Thank you for letting me know. This kind of things always fascinate me. Yakikaki (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
refs

• Looking at the article from an overview, I think I will come back to this separately for some comments on the prose and such
• Ref 1 needs a "|language=Swedish"
• Ref 39 should be ISBN 13 (use the converter)
• ref 116 missing "Church of Sweden" link

works cited

• Andersson need an ISBN or OCLC (looking it up on Worldcat might help)
• Augustsson, Jacobsson, Jonsson, Karlsson, Lagerlöf should all be ISBN 13s Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• The further reading entry could also do with an OCLC Aza24 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for these comments! I have fixed what I could so far, but I would need some guidance regarding the ISBN-question (which certainly isn't my area of expertise). With ISBN 13s, I assume you mean ISBN-numbers beginning with 13? I could not find any such numbers for any of the books you mentioned, neither in WorldCat nor the catalogue of the Swedish national library libris.kb.se, and could not produce them by using the converter you linked to. Could you please point me in the direction where I should go with this, what am I missing or doing wrong here? Many thanks, Yakikaki (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki, ISBN 13s are the "newer" ISBNS as opposed to the "older" ISBN 10s which some of your ISBNs are at the moment. If the ISBN number begins with 978 it is an ISBN 13, otherwise it's an ISBN 10 – Wikipedia requires all ISBNs to be ISBN 13 (The number 13 itself has nothing to do with the actual ISBN) All you have to do is take any ISBNs that don't begin with 978 (since that would mean they are not ISBN 13s) and put them in the converter and then replace the ISBN 10 with what you get. Let me know if you have further questions on this. BTW I plan to come back to read through the prose. Aza24 (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Aza24 for taking the time to explain this to me, I've learned something new and useful and will change the ISBN:s accordingly, and keep this in mind for the future as well. I'll try to fix this during the day and get back here when I'm done. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it! Yakikaki (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Good work, pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• Not doing a full review; wanted to comment first to import the discussion here confirming that there is no issue with how much prose is in this list in regards to FLC. In addition to that, however, I wanted to briefly comment on the table being split up into chunks- it should not be, as that breaks sortability (not to mention the breaks are arbitrary beyond how many churches start with a given letter). They should be combined into one table. --PresN 19:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you PesN for the comment and also for the point about the list being split into chunks. I've changed it into a single, long list. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul

Nominator(s): --Leo Mercury (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria and I did all the corrections necessary. --Leo Mercury (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikilink drag queen - I don't think we can assume that every reader will know what this means
• "RuPaul's Drag Race and its various spin-off" - missing S on the end
• "The series was met with critical acclaim" - which series? The last sentence mentioned four different (albeit related) series
• "(becoming the person with the most wins in the category of Outstanding Host for a Competition Program)" => I would say "making him the person with the most wins in the category of Outstanding Host for a Competition Program" (and lose the brackets)
• "He was nominated for a BAFTA TV Award for the first season of Drag Race UK." - was he nominated, or was the show nominated?
• "the release of his debut single, "Supermodel (You Better Work)"" - it was not his debut single according to the song's article
• Many of the awards in the table were presented to shows rather then to RuPaul himself. In some cases the award was to one or more named people, including him (eg the Producers Guild Award was given jointly to RuPaul, Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato, Tom Campbell, Mandy Salangsang, and Steven Corfe). When RuPaul was named a joint winner with other people, that should be noted. When an award was made simply to the show and RuPaul was not specifically named as a winner, I think it's debatable whether it should be listed here at all. I'll see what other editors think on this point.
• Refs look OK, but the title of the Logo TV one should not be shown in all caps.
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. I think we can leave all the awards received by the show on his page because as a creator, host and producer of the series I think it is safe to assume that he is the main recipient of most of them, but I would like to know what the other editors think about this matter. --Leo Mercury (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm cool with seeking a wider view. I'll check back here later but in the meantime I will sashay away :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • It's a fair point, and not dissimilar to one I made at the Brad Pitt awards FLC on this page where a film he was in won an Oscar and the list claimed Pitt himself had won two Oscars, that one, and one for his personal achievement. I'll take a look at this list in due course, but I'm tending to side with Chris on this... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Refs missing authors: 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33
• Ref 25 missing author and date
• Would link to see all the publishers linked rather than just some. I went ahead and linked most, double check that I got them all
• Why is 21 MTV news instead of just MTV?
• Why is Entertainment Weekly cited as a maganazene in refs 12 and 14 but not in 15?
• reliability looks fine Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. --Leo Mercury (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Good work, pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from GagaNutella

• Put all awards on infobox
• Wikilink everything you can on the Category column
• I recommend put work and then category (I see most articles are like this)
• Compact ToC isn't working
• All notes are missing "."
• Ref: 6: delete bafta.org. 16, 17, 19: Change GLAAD.org. to Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (as publisher). 28: change Emmys.com to Emmy Awards.

I will run AutoEd to clean up the article. GagaNutella^talk 19:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've corrected everything. The only thing I did not edit is the compact ToC, because it seems to be working for me. --Leo Mercury (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Demi Lovato

Nominator(s): Jaberts123 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been making a significant amount of changes to the page to ensure it is around the same layout and inline with similar awards pages of singers and artists. It is referenced well and is easy to navigate with a nice introduction. Jaberts123 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: You made two FLC nominations with Demi Lovato discography. Unfortunately, we only allow one nomination at a time. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note! Do you know which list would be considered first? --Jaberts123 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Entirely up to you which one to proceed with, but you need to withdraw one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• UPDATE nominator withdrew the discography nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

I unfortunately must oppose right now as this still has a long way to go even after addressing the above comments. Can't say I feel comfortable with the use of File:Demi Lovato 09-16-2017 -8 (36458528123).jpg when it clearly show's the authors name written in the corner, plus it would be best to use pic of Demi attending an award-related event when this page pertains to her accolades No mention in the lead of awards/nominations for Camp Rock, Princess Protection Program, "Give Your Heart a Break", "Made in the USA", "Neon Lights"? "(2009-2011)" should read "(2009–2011)" per WP:DASH Given ChrisTheDude's comments on removing works from the lead that didn't win any awards or even get nominated for them, we can safely omit the Don't Forget album, the "Here We Go Again" song, and the Tell Me You Love Me album. I'd replace the lattermost with how the "Tell Me You Love Me" song won a BMI Pop Award. MOS:FONTSIZE discourages making text appear smaller than it naturally would; doing so needlessly makes it harder on the eyes to read I'm not sure "Listicles" are appropriate or common to include on these types of pages Some citations are still missing titles, accessdates, and publication names. Also, they all should list authors as well as publication dates whenever available. "Celebrity-gossip.net", "Crushable", "CelebMix", "Video Static", and IMDb should be replaced with stronger sources "www.ascap.com" → ASCAP (and don't italicize this acronym) Remove the ".com" from "BMI.com", which also shouldn't have italics "www.neon.hu" → BRAVO OTTO "GRAMMY.com" → Grammy Award Not sure how credible this is, but it either way doesn't even mention "Échame la Culpa" "E! Online" and "Br.eonline.com" should both read as E! (not italicized) You seem to have mislabled "Nickelodeon divulga os indicados da segunda fase do "'Meus Prêmios Nick'" (which translates to "Nickelodeon discloses nominees for the second phase of 'My Nick Awards'" in English) as "Taylor Swift é indicada ao Kids Choice Awards 2015 do México, Colômbia e Brasil", and "taylorswfit.com.br" of that link should read "NaTelinha" "mp3musicawards.co.uk" is redundant when you already have "MP3 Awards" in the citation outdated URL, and "www.mtvema.com" should read MTV Europe Music Award "Mtv.com" and "www.mtv.com" should read as MTV MTV News shouldn't be italicized "EW.com" → Entertainment Weekly Don't italicize MTV Italy "Millennial.mtvla.com" → MTV Millennial Awards "Oceanup.com" → OceanUp (with italics) "PeoplesChoice.com" → People's Choice Awards (a term that shouldn't have italics) Another bad link "awards.realscreen.com." → Realscreen Awards "Shortyawards.com" → Shorty Awards Another outdated link faulty URL that makes no mention of Demi "TVGuide.com" → TV Guide Sorry, but that's quite a lot of problems to sort through, especially with refence formatting. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC) I was able to fix some of the changes you suggested. I moved the small text under the category section of the list and normal text sizing, so for example all of her nominations that featured other artists or were for a TV show/movie were moved under the category for which she was nominated.--Jaberts123 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC) UPDATE: I fixed the references so they have authors first and last, publishers, dates and access dates if applicable for all. I fixed the introduction and took the suggestions to make it better (removing works that did not receive awards and nominations and also added in awards she won for philanthropic work), I added back listicles because they are part of her achievements in her career. I'm still trying to figure out adding in a new photo from an award ceremony she went to.--Jaberts123 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC) A new photo has been uploaded onto the page where it shows Lovato at an award ceremony in 2017--Jaberts123 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC) File:Demi Lovato, 59th Annual Grammy Awards.jpg unfortunately was a non-free file and WP:Non-free content criteria says such images cannot be used when free images are available, so I boldly replaced it with the properly licensed File:Demi Lovato Backstage Billboard Muisc Awards 2018 (cropped).jpg as that isn't copyrighted. A possible alternative in regards to award show pics is File:Demi Lovato 2, (Cropped).jpg. I used the photo File:Demi Lovato 2, (Cropped).jpg instead.--Jaberts123 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, all comments are resolved and done. Thank you for the help! --Jaberts123 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC) You still haven't fixed a hyphen/dash issue for Sonny with a Chance in the lead or replaced the subpar sources I mentioned above (aside from IMDb). Additionally, Us Weekly (aka Us Magazine) is a horrid gossip rag that should be avoided, some citations continue to lack accessdates, and I still see improper formatting of references. Furthermore, Demi's own YouTube channel cannot be used as a citation for accolades unlike a video/article that specifically mentions them. Even if "Other accolades" is worth keeping around, there's no point in having a subheading (currently titled "Listicles") when there are no other subsections within the section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Fixed again, however will look at the references again and change the formatting. I removed the YouTube Creator Award that was linked to her YouTube account for I could not find a link that mentions the award, there are just pictures of here holding the award. Replaced US Weekly with The Hollywood Reporter. As for the other links the were mentioned to be replaced, there are no other links that show the awards that she won, for example "Celebrity-gossip.net", "Crushable", and "Video Static". Thanks again for all the help --Jaberts123 (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Unfortunately if there's no reliable source for an award then it will have to be removed. If a big star like Lovato receiving an award wasn't covered by any reliable sources, then if must be a pretty obscure award and probably not really worth mentioning (I notice that at least two of the awards sourced to the sites you mention in the comment above don't even have WP articles)....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC) That reminds me of another thing; there already is consensus that award ceremonies that don't have or warrant their own Wikipedia pages (e.g. "MVPA Awards", "Open Minds Gala", "Realscreen Awards", "Youth Rock Awards", and "Z Awards" in this case) aren't supposed to be listed on accolade lists anyway. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC) All fixed. The awards mentioned above have been removed from the page.--Jaberts123 (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Things are looking better when going through again, but citation#2 is malformatted. See Template:Cite tweet for how to properly use tweets as citations, and while their use should be limited, Mike Adam seems OK to use in this case. You still need to replace "Celebrity-gossip.net" (ref#4), not sure PopSugar (ref#104) is high quality, Teen Vogue should be italicized unlike Teen.com (which should be removed from the "Photos: Demi Lovato at the 2011 Do Something Awards" title in ref#26), "Shortyawards.com" from ref#98 is supposed to read as "Shorty Awards", link InStyle for InStyle awards, and remove of JIM Awards, Mental Health Advocacy Award, and MP3 Awards since that ceremony don't seem to have or warrant their own pages. If possible, I'd try to get something other than a Tumblr link for Webby Awards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC) SNUGGUMS thank you for the help, these have been fixed. However, there is no other link to replace "Celebrity-gossip.net" (ref#4), PopSugar has been replaced, InStyle is linked InStyle, Teen.com is removed from title and is no longer italicized whereas Teen Vogue is still italicized. Shorty Awards is fixed, and I could not find a different link to replace Tumblr link. Thanks again! --Jaberts123 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC) You're welcome and we now are almost there. If you can't find anything to use in place of celeb-gossip.net for its attributed content, then just remove that listing altogether, and tweets need to be quoted verbatim when citing them. See Cozy Little Christmas and Never Really Over for examples of what I mean. I also forgot to mention that InStyle should have italics for the table listing on its award. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, InStyle and the tweet have both been fixed. I was able to find a proper link to replace celeb-gossip.net! So everything has been fixed! Thank you!--Jaberts123 (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Following major improvements, I now support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SNUGGUMS! --Jaberts123 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

More comments

• "Lovato released her third studio album Unbroken, releasing two singles" - repetition of "released/releasing". Change the second one to "featuring"
• ""Skyscraper" won Best Video with a Message and Choice Summer: Song" - according to the article on the awards, the category was called Choice Music: Summer Song, not Choice Summer: Song
• "was nominated for two awards at the 2012 Teen Choice Awards: Choice Summer Song" and "Choice Love Song"" - why are these category titles suddenly in quote marks (or half quote marks in the case of the first one?
• "Lovato was nominated for three awards at the 2018 Billboard Music Awards, including Top Female Artist and received" => "Lovato was nominated for three awards at the 2018 Billboard Music Awards, including Top Female Artist, and received"
• As an aside, Cutest Musician's Pet is possibly the most moronic award I have ever seen in one of these lists, but that's nothing to do with the quality of this article :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, ChrisTheDude. All the comments have been fixed. Quotation marks have been removed from award category names, comma was added in 2018 BBMA, releasing was replaced with featuring, and the Teen Choice Award category name was changed! Thank you for all the help! :) --Jaberts123 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, ChrisTheDude, for the support. --Jaberts123 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from GagaNutella

• Infobox: Latin Billboard Music Awards and Billboard Touring Awards, Billboard is in italic. GAFFA Awards (Sweden) you don't need to mention Sweden. Glamour Awards, Glamour is in italic. InStyle Awards, InStyle is in italic. Guinness World Records is in italic. Wikilink MTV Millennial Awards Brazil.
• Table: Wikilink Billboard Touring Awards. Bravo Otto (Hungary) you don't need to mention Hungray. GAFFA Awards (Sweden) you don't need to mention Sweden. Change MTV Millennial Awards (Brazil) to MTV Millennial Awards Brazil. Don't use quote marks on Lovatics. (with ...) or (for...) should be placed on the Recipient(s) and nominee(s) column. Wikilink everything possible on the Category column.
• MediaWiki:Toc isn't working.
• Ref: 34: The Grammys isn't in italic. 63: Entertainment Weekly is in italic. 68: Deadline is in italic. 75: it isn't working. 84: change PeoplesChoice.com to People's Choice Awards.

I will run AutoEd to clean up the article. GagaNutella^talk 19:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, GagaNutella for the comments! I fixed the People's Choice link, removed the MediaWiki:Toc, however for Billboard, Grammy, Glamour, etc. I was told those were to be in italics. Also, multiple other music artists have Bravo Otto and GAFFA with their respective countries because multiple countries host different GAFFA and Bravo Otto awards. Wikilinked Billboard Touring Awards and MTV Millennial Awards Brazil. Thank you, again! ----Jaberts123 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please, do the fixes on the table and then I will support. GagaNutella^talk 18:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Everything is fixed. Thanks, GagaNutella --Jaberts123 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Still missing: Glamour Awards, Glamour is in italic. InStyle Awards, InStyle is in italic. Guinness World Records is in italic. Wikilink MTV Millennial Awards Brazil. Change MTV Millennial Awards (Brazil) to MTV Millennial Awards Brazil on the table. GagaNutella^talk 21:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Don't Glamour, Guinness, and InStyle have to be in italics since they are awards from the magazine? Because looking at Gaga's awards, those are italicized, too. Just fixed MTV Brazil, too Jaberts123 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, they are. But they are incorrect on the infobox. That's the point. GagaNutella^talk 01:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oh gosh, I am so sorry. I kept misreading, I thought you meant in the table for some reason. Okay infobox is fixed. My apologies again. Thank you for the help, GagaNutella! Jaberts123 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support very good! GagaNutella^talk 04:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, GagaNutella --Jaberts123 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

I'll be back to do this one sometime tomorrow Aza24 (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Sorry for getting back to this late, comments:

• At the moment the most outstanding issue is that some works/publishers/websites are linked, some aren't – it needs to be one way or the other, either is fine Since most are linked I'll list the ones that aren't: Shorty Awards, World Music Award, ASCAP, some of the Billboard, Young Artist Awards and MTV were the ones I found
• Ref 10 missing author and date
• What makes refs 18 and 19 reliable?
• Refs 18 and 19 should have a "|language=Hungarian" parameter (they are missing dates as well)
• Ref 20 needs a "|language=Portuguese" (translated title, like ref 22, would be nice as well)
• What makes ref 27 reliable?
• Not sure how 32 is reliable, the WP page for the site says that users can register to post content
• ref 44 missing date
• Author for 73 listed twice
• Got to 80s, will come back for the rest later
• Everything else looks good. Reliability is fine. Aza24 (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks so much, Aza24. All have been fixed! Jaberts123 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Shoot I totally forgot about this one, doing the rest now. Still unsure how ref 18 is reliable
• Refs 90 and 91 are the same and should be combined (like how you did for ref 45)
• ref 92 (Taylor Swift & Justin Bieber Lead Radio Disney Music Awards Nominations) is missing author
• ref 110 missing author
• ref 119 missing date
• That's it for me... fix these small things and you're good

• Thank you again, Aza24! In terms of Ref. 18, it shows all the nominees for the awards that year, including for Demi's category. Thanks! Jaberts123 (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The reason I asked about ref 18 was because it is a blog and blogs are generally unreliable. That being said, since it's citing statistical information I think it's fine, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, got it! Thank you for clarifying! And thank you for the review, Aza24. Jaberts123 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Broadway theaters

Nominator(s): Found5dollar (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because "Broadway Theater" is a well known term without a historically well-defined meaning. Over time what has defined a Broadway Theater has changed and marking out the fluidity of the category is not something easily found elsewhere on the internet. I passed this list through Peer Review and was encourage to directly nominate it here. I look forward to everyone's feedback.Found5dollar (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Chidgk1

• Add an article description

• added a short description template.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Early variety, burlesque, and minstrelsy halls were built along Broadway below Houston Street, and as the city expanded north new theaters were constructed along the thoroughfare with family friendly vaudeville, developed by Tony Pastor, clustering around Union Square in the 1860s and 1870s, larger opera houses, hippodromes, and theaters populating Broadway between Union Square and Times Square later in the century, and Times Square itself becoming the epicenter for large scale theater productions between 1900 and the Great Depression." is confusing. Maybe it should be two sentences.

• re-worded it as: "Early variety, burlesque, and minstrelsy halls were built along Broadway below Houston Street. As the city expanded north new theaters were constructed along the thoroughfare with family friendly vaudeville, developed by Tony Pastor, clustering around Union Square in the 1860s and 1870s, and larger opera houses, hippodromes, and theaters populating Broadway between Union Square and Times Square later in the century. Times Square became the epicenter for large scale theater productions between 1900 and the Great Depression."--Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• If possible add a pic of Circle in the Square Theatre

• there isn't one on commons and I did all my normal searching for a freely licensed one but couldn't find any. I normally would just go take a picture but with COVID I can't make it to mid town right now...--Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• No need for image and refs columns to be sortable.

• doneFound5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with US addresses so not sure if that column sort is useful. Belasco Theatre address looks odd.

• it is all address in Manhattan that are odd. Belasco's address of "111 W. 44th St." breaks down to Building Number (111), side of Manhattan (East or West, here it is "W" for West), then the street or avenue (44th St.). Lots of numbers and abbreviations, I know but that is how it is laid out here.Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• "The following lists organize all demolished venues which hosted legitimate theater that appear on the Database based on when their last theatrical production was compared to the three moments that can be considered the begging of Broadway theatre." is confusing even if "begging" is a typo for "beginning".

• re-worded it to "The following lists organize all demolished venues which hosted legitimate theater and appear on the Database. The theaters are organized into 4 lists based on when their last theatrical production opened compared to the three moments that may be considered the begining of Broadway theatre."Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Use of "still" in "Before the advent of the musical there were still multiple theaters in New York that claimed the moniker of "Broadway", including an 1847 theater named the Broadway Theatre." reads odd to me but perhaps it is normal in US English?

• removed the "still"Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Barnum's American Museum seems to say it opened in 1841 so do you think the "built" columns should be titled "opened"?

• 1841 is when Barnum acquired the building, not when the theater opened. I have not been able to find that information anywhere. changing the column to "opened" would sold this because we know the Chinese rooms opened in 1850 per the source. Changed all "Built" headers to "opened" and filled in Barnum's cell.Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Do you think "buildings" would be better than "structures"?

• I went with the word "structures" in the lead because not all of the theaters through history were encloses. A handfull were open air roof top spaces and 1 was an outdoor amphitheater. Because of this "building" doest cover all of the theaters through history, while "structure" does.Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have time could you take a quick look at List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey and comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1. Assuming you know nothing about the subject it will be valuable if you could point out anything which is difficult to understand for a first time reader. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Chidgk1, thank you for the comments. Sorry it took a few days, when i submitted this i forgot about plans i had yesterday. If I find time, I'd be happy to take a look at List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey.Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Guerillero

• Map nerd comment: It might be worth thinking about using Template:Maplink or a closer view of southern Manhattan than the giant static map --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think my comment was unfair {{maplink|frame=yes|frame-width=600|frame-height=600|frame-align=center|from=BroadwayTheaters.map}} will display the map. I am working on moving everything to commons here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Guerillero, THANK YOU! The map was a tough sticking point for me, I know we need it, but I tried both Location map and OSM Location map but neither seemd to be the right answer. I have never used Maplink before. Thank you for creating this and I'm going to read up on how this style of map works.Found5dollar (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Guerillero and Found5dollar: I converted the whole thing to Maplink without reading this first. Feel free to modify/change it, or revert it if you don't like the appearance. epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Think that's it. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude, thank you for such a through review and pointing out that I have absolutely no idea when a hyphen is necessary ;-P. The only note that I think needs discussion is the addition of dates for the former names of demolished theaters. As i stated above this information is available, but i chose not to include it. I figured in these demolished sections the dates were not important as the building no longer stands. When a demolished building changed names seem moot to me. I'd be happy to add in this info if it seems valuable and like it won't muddy the table. Please let me know if it seem pertinent to you or not. Thanks again for the review!Found5dollar (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think it would be worth putting the dates in, personally..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude, It took a while but I got all the past names dated in the demolished theater sections. the only issue is with "Princess Theatre" where there are 3 previous names but no dates attached in the reference. please let me know if there are anyother issues you see and thank you for all the suggestions so far!Found5dollar (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Juset one (hopefully final) comment - based on the source I believe the entry for the Bijou Theatre should list its second spell of being known by that name as 1965-1982, not just 1965 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude, Oh weird. I ran into that a few other times where the listed names for the same year were inverted in the source and I just apparently missed this one. Thanks for catching it. fixed.Found5dollar (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Would link New York City College of Technology

• Done. also added link to CUNY.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Nielsen Holdings is Nielsen Business Media, not sure if it should be linked though

• added the link just to be safe.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 4 Feb 08 should be February 8

• Done.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 8 needs ISBN (find it here), can link to Rowman & Littlefield

• Done for both. --Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Refs 2, 3, 6, 8 and 63 should have a space after the "p." (e.g. "p. 40")

• Done.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 6 should be "pp. 6–7" (note the em – dash)

• added em dash.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 63 McFarland & Company can be linked

• linked.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• What is "Jefferson, London." in ref 63?

• It looks like I made a mistake. That should read "Jefferson, N.C." as the location of the publisher. Fixed and added an ISBN for it.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Kaiser, DJ," in refs in 2 and 6 should be "Kaiser, DJ." (with a period) I'm assuming? Aza24 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes! thanks for catching that. Fixed.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Aza24 Thank you for taking the time to review these refs! Please let me know if there are any other issues you see.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Found5dollar: Everything looks good now, tweaked a couple of things. Nice to see this list getting so much attention, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

WikiCup entry

• Don't use "currently" - see WP:Currently.

• removed the word from the article completely.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Broadway is overlinked twice in the lead.

• reduced the links to the street, Broadway, to just once in the lead.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Image caption is a fragment, doesn't need a period.

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Should Off-off-Broadway be mentioned?

• I toyed with this for a little bit, but Off-Off has no true relationship to Broadway theaters as structures. Off-Off was realy created as a response to Off-Broadway becoming too commercial, not Broadway which always was. If this was a list of Off-Broadway theaters I would 100% talk about Off-Off as it is the next tier of theater in NYC, but it has very little bearing historically to the theater buildings that make up Broadway.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Most of the second paragraph isn't referenced, like those at geographical extremities.

• It is my understanding that summarizing what the chart says does not need to be cited. These items including geographic extremities, youngest and oldest, largest and smallest, etc. are fully cited and explained in the chart and derive from it. I'd be happy to cite them here as well if my understanding is incorrect, but I am unsure how to cite that.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Actor's Equity (Association) is overlinked.

• reduced to once in the lead and once in the "Demolished" section--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the "Active..." section, Actor's Equity (Association) is linked on its second mention.

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Broadway League is overlinked.

• Reduced to once in the lead, and once in the "Active" section--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• "organizations currently use" avoid "currently" again.

• Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. of seats in that source appears to be "approximate" so that needs to be reflected in the list somehow.

• Just as an interesting aside, capacity for venues in America are almost always approximate due to the Americans with Disabilities Act. One wheelchair takes up two "seats" so capacity and seat numbers will fluctuate based upon the amount of wheelchair uses at each performance. I have added a note referencing that all capacity numbers are approximate, and now since there are 2 notes in the article i started a new "Notes" section.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a non-expert, can you explain how the "address" column sorts please?

• The address column sorts by the number of the street the theater is on, then the building number. It sorts theaters on 41st street first, then 42nd, then 43rd, etc. with the theaters on Broadway sorted last.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• "are 9 theaters" nine.

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• "W Hotel"->"W Hotels"

• Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why isn't Central Theatre referred to as Movieland, per the ref? Suddenly now using the original names?

• Picking which name to use for each theater was a challenge as some have gone through so many names. My general rule is to list theaters under the name they went by when they last hosted a legitimate theatrical production. Central Theater is a special case though because it did have legitimate theater from 1951-1956 under the "Holiday Theatre" name, but the wiki page, and one of the sources still called it the "Central Theater." I made an exception here because it seems "Central Theater" is the popular name for it, but understand if people disagree and feel that it should be listed as "Holiday Theater" for sake of consistency. It shoudlt be listed under "Movieland" because no theatrical productions took place under that moniker.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Theater" v "Theatre"... interesting issues (e.g. Ed Sullivan Theater reference calls it Ed Sullivan Theatre...)

• "Theater" v "Theatre" is incredibly hard to parse out and is often contridicted by sources for the same places. We even have a disclaimer on the main Broadway theatre page which states: "Although theater is the generally preferred spelling in the United States (see American and British English spelling differences), many Broadway venues, performers and trade groups for live dramatic presentations use the spelling theatre." I tended to base how to spell each buildings name here based first off what the IBDB source says, but then if the article for the theater has a different spelling of "theater" I went with it instead. I figured that the editors working on the individual theater spent more time with varied sources for that specific building so deferred to it.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• No need to link common terms like "hotel" or "storefront"...

• unlined those two--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Actors' Equity is overlinked several times.

• fixed above--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Internet Broadway Database is overlinked.

• it is only linked twice int eh article, should I remove it from all of the cites?--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why isn't "President Theatre" referred to as "Erwin Piscator's Dramatic Workshop" per its source? There seem to be a few discrepancies of this nature.

• My general rule is to list theaters under the name they went by when they last hosted a legitimate theatrical production. The Dramatic Workshop was a school in multiple locations, had no public performances from what I can tell, and has no productions listed on the IBDB source. The last legitimate theatrical production in the space was under the "President Theatre" moniker. These discrepancies you may be findings are likey similiar issues to this one. Often a theater space is turned into another kind of theater before it is knocked down.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Tynan caption is fragment, no period.

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• " variety, burlesque, and minstrel " all overlinked.

• Reduced to once in the lead, and once in the "Demolished" section--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Whether or not it is truly the first musical, The Black Crook marks a turning point where Broadway became less about the variety, burlesque, and minstrel shows of the past, and began to be known more for the large-scale book musical which still reigns today. T" claims like this need reference and attribution.

• you are totally right, i just completely missed adding in that cite. thank you for catching it. Original cite added.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Nibio's Garden caption is a frag, no period.

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 7 title is missing an apostrophe.

Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Park Theatre caption, same again, no period.

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a first pass. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man, Thank you for taking the time to review this list! Please let me know if you find any additional issues or if any of my answers to your questions need further clarification.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sdkb

I haven't done a featured list review before, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but I've been reviewing some nominations in preparation for submitting a candidate page I've been working on, and wanted to leave a few thoughts about this page. Overall, it looks quite good — the images are quite nice, and the map is a very useful addition. The main source, IBDB, looks reliable.

There are a few tweaks that could be made to improve the formatting of the tables. When abbreviations are used for headers, they should be accompanied by {{abbr}}, as I demonstrated here. Some columns for things like years might also benefit from being centered rather than left-justified.

• I have updated all the abbreviations in the headers to say what the abbr stands for. I previously considered centering the date columns, but it began to look weird in my opinion in the demolished theater sections because you had a centered year, a not centered year and title of of play, then a centered year again. I felt if years are centered in one table they should be in all of them. I'm happy to do this if other people think it would make legibility of the tables better but i just felt it looked awkward.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Per criterion 5's expectation that minimal proportion of items are redlinked, I do notice that there are quite a few redlinked items, mostly historical plays. I'm not sure why that's a criterion, since I don't think it'd be fair to force the creation of a gazillion small stubs in order for this page to be listed. The thing that does matter for redlinks, though, is making sure that all redlinked pages are notable. It looks like we don't have a specific notability guideline for plays, so I'd be curious to hear your thoughts regarding whether we're safe assuming that any play that has been on Broadway is sure to meet the General Notability Guideline, and if we're not, which redlinks we might want to unlink.

• IMHO a play or musical that has had a Broadway run is inherently notable. Unfortunately theater coverage in Wikipedia is not as good as it could be so many notable pieces are still missing articles. I agree there is an above average number of redlinks in some columns (namely the playas in the theaters), but I do not feel like they overwhelm. Of the actual items the list is about, theater buildings, only 16 out of almost 150 entries are redlinked which feels minimal to me. I'm happy to unlink the plays that are relinked if it is distracting but also hope that by them being redlinked it may open the doors for another editior to create the pages.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Once the above things are addressed, I will be happy to offer my support, although again with the caveat that I am not the most experienced reviewer. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sdkb, sorry for the delayed response to your questions, and thank you for taking the time to review this list. Please let me knwo if any of my answers are not satisfactory to you or if you see any additional issues.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  I asked for clarification at MOS about the column alignments, but I won't hold up my !vote over that. Support. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Leeteuk performances

Nominator(s): Lulusword (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because he is a prominent figure in South Korean entertainment industry, having an extensive filmography. I have been working on this article since January, and I believe it has meet the criteria. Lulusword (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The only outstanding thing I can see is that the notes are not complete sentences, so should not have full stops. I did mention this above, but they are still there. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have overlooked them. I've fix the issue now, hopefully I didn't miss anything else. Lulusword (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Bilorv

(Intending to claim WikiCup points for this review.)

• "K-pop boy band Super Junior" is a sea of blue that could be remedied by unlinking boy band.
• The lead should be at most four paragraphs long; I'd recommend merging the last two paragraphs and listing fewer award/concert hostings.
• The "Television shows" has a hardcoded width in pixels that makes it very thin on my monitor, and very wide when I minimise the screen. By removing this width specification, it makes the tables display appropriately on a wider range of monitors and web browsers.
• I'd expect each table to be sortable by every column other than "Ref", particularly useful for sorting "Television shows" by name or network.
• Some tables use "Ref." and some use "Ref" but I think all should use {{Abbr|Ref.|References}}.
• Each table should have a caption (achieved by |+ Title of the table) e.g. "List of Leeteuk performances in film" for accessibility reasons (so people who use screen readers know what the table is about).
• Should The Best Cooking Secrets be "2017 – present" rather than "2017 – 2020" (like the value below it)?
• Super Junior Kiss the Radio should use "2006–2011, 2016" rather than "2006–2011; 2016" (for consistency).
• When are networks linked and when are they not (e.g. SBS isn't for Salamander Guru and The Shadows but is in the following Star King)?
• Why is File:20180820 Leeteuk ISAC Chuseok Special.png displayed at a size considerably smaller than the image above it?
• I'm not a fan of File:Leeteuk Analog Trip press conference (cropped).png, which looks a bit bad quality to me, and has logos and is very tall. I'd suggest removing, but if it is to be kept, could it be cropped (to a similar body portion as the other images)?
• ... to celebrate those who had honorably completed their military service is not neutral, and I think the note could be removed completely as it doesn't give any more information than the title "Military Service Awards".

Thanks for your work on the list. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bilorv, thank you for the comment. I've fixed most of the things you point out but as I can only edit on mobile, I am not sure how the layout looks now as I can only rely on "view on desktop site" setting. The table was hard coded with pixel mainly because it is quite large and take up the whole space, but since you pointed out the issue, I have move the pictures to the top of the table. I also changed the Analog Trip press conference image with a better quality image. Is that okay? Leeteuk's departure from The Best Cooking Secrets had been announced and the last episode featuring him will air on July, so I use "2017–2020" as the year range, while SJ Return is still filming, with episodes written up to January/February 2021 and does not have confirmation on when the season will end, so I use "2017–present" for it. Is that okay or should I still use "2017–present" for both of them? Lulusword (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I've made one edit about the refs being unsortable here but otherwise everything has been suitably addressed—thanks for those answers. Probably good that these tables have been designed with mobile foremost as that's where most of our readers are viewing, and it does look good on my desktop at least. Support (with references taken on good faith as I can't speak Korean). — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 19:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

WikiCup entry

• "He had hosted" has.

• Done Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• "which were screened in selected cinemas." where is this cited?

• I sourced to KOFIC which indicate the number of screens, is this acceptable? Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• "a host when he hosted t" repetitive.

• fixed Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• "he enlisted in the military" shouldn't that really be "he was conscripted into"?

• I'm not sure about this, because news article always used the term "enlist" when Korean entertainers go into the military, I rarely sees the term conscription. Should I change it, regardless? Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• No it's fine. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• "He started hosting" why not just "He hosted"?

• Fixed Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Film title should be the row scope, not the year of release.

• Do you mean film title should come first or film title should have the grey background, because the most recently promoted filmography list Javier Bardem filmography looks similar to what my table looks like now. Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's what I mean but it's not a deal-breaker. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Television shows, don't use colour alone to denote something, per MOS:COLOR, a symbol as well please.

• Fixed Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note column need not be sortable as it's free text, not useful.

• Fixed Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sortable table needs each linkable item to be linked every time as after sorting you aren't sure which one lists first.

• Can you clarify what do you mean by this? Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Items in sortable tables which are linked should be linked every time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed Lulusword (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Television show title should be the row scope.

• same as above Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• See MOS:DTT for information on "scopes". The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Tables with one entry need not be sortable, looks silly.

• fixed Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Spaced hyphens should be en-dashes per MOS:DASH.

• fixed Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's it on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment! :) Lulusword (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Quick comment – I haven't done a full review of the sources, but on a glance I can see that references 5 and 6 have all caps in the titles, which should be removed per the Manual of Style. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed. Lulusword (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

• A lot of sources! From a first glance it looks like you've included translated titles and "in Korean" markings so that's awesome to see. Anyways, doing (full) source review now Aza24 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• ref 4 missing date

• Fixed Lulusword (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 15 shouldn't be in all caps, per WP:MOS (as far as I remember at least)

• Fixed Lulusword (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• ref 2 in 50 missing author
• refs 79 and 80 missing authors (at bottom of page)
• is there a reason is "Naver news" for refs 25 and 49a instead of just "Naver" like the rest?

• Fixed. Lulusword (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh I hate to call you attention to a tedious task, but most of the "Naver" sources are missing the authors. This may because some of them are at the end of the articles
• In fact, it looks like a lot of refs are missing authors (probably because a lot are like the above, at the end of the page), if you want we could split the refs in half and each go through checking for authors? The sources look good otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• That will be cool. Please let me know which half I need to do. Lulusword (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've started from the top. If I'm not finish by the time you check in, you can start at the bottom. Otherwise, I think I can do it. It's tedious but it's not that hard :D Lulusword (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have some other things I'm in the middle of but I'd be able to go through the other half tomorrow. If you want to do so before then feel free to, but if not no worries. Aza24 (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I've finished adding authors to all news articles that have them. Lulusword (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for getting through them, I was just about to do so but it looks like you beat me to it. Anyways, great work here, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 19:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Lecrae discography

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it satisfies the criteria for featured lists. For a long time it had issues with citations and referencing, I believe that these issues have long been addressed. The article has already undergone peer review and the recommendations implemented.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the singles as a lead artist table, the first two rows have the album title cell shaded and differently aligned. I think something is up with the scope on those rows.
• Some of the refs for singles/songs are against the release date or the album title rather than the title - better to be consistent in their placement
• A few of the music videos have no source
• Think that's it on the tables...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  All of this should be fixed now--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• You may want to consider using semi-colons in the first sentence (e.g., "eighty singles, including forty-one as a featured performer, forty-five music videos..." → "eighty singles, including forty-one as a featured performer; forty-five music videos..."
• No. 1 → number-one
• No. 3 → number-three (or "in the top five")

• This was done, and then reverted by Walter Görlitz because once it is the consensus to leave the numeral formatting established as it is once it has been set. Also, per MOS:NUMERO, the existing form is acceptable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• "It received RIAA Gold certification" → "It was certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)"

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Body

• "—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory. Beginning in 2015, Billboard rendered most hip hop/rap albums ineligible for the Gospel charts → this note is usually indicated at the bottom of the table (see here for an example).

  This was separated from the tables by Izno and myself due to concerns about accessibility.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Chart column titles' font size is reduced to 90%; those with more than one word take up two lines with <br> as well.

I'm not sure what you're requesting here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Don't list notes at the bottom of the table, use {{efn}} and create a "Notes" section at the bottom of the article followed by {{notelist}}.

This was done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• You may want to consider adding more archive links to the sources as many are older web links, and perhaps to Billboard links as well because they have changed their chart URLs many times in recent years.

I did a bit of this today, I'll go through and check to make sure that they all are live.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Non-album single → {{n/a|non-album single}}; rowspan="x" {{n/a|non-album singles}}
• "Get Back Right" (with/featuring x) → "Get Back Right"<br>(with/featuring x) (applies to all)

  Use of small text in for this is a violation of the Manual of Style guidelines for accessibility, much more clearly than the notes at the bottom of tables is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  From what I've read at MOS:SMALLTEXT, small font is prohibited in "infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections." I'm pretty sure this isn't a violation (tables don't automatically reduce font size), otherwise small text would be banned from every article, and that certainly isn't the case. You should be okay here. Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Why do these need small text, though? I might pose a query on the talk page for MOS:ACCESS.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, there is and should be a high bar for the use of abnormally-sized text. The line in question you are reading is there because adding small text to elements in the listed kinds of templates/sections takes us below the absolute threshold for small size text, not because it shouldn't say more strongly that small text elsewhere does not also need to have strong justification. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Izno, for your feedback here and elsewhere.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly suggest removing the day and month from the date column in the singles tables... it is difficult to source and not the standard format. (You can still show release order by listing them chronologically)

  I looked at the guidelines, and there's nothing that says you shouldn't do this, just that it's not necessary. In this case, all the exact dates are supported by the citations, or else just the year is given.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not 100% on the citations for the dates at this point. For example, ref 73 links to an article that was posted on May 5, 2008, but the release day in the table is listed as March 4, 2008. Also, the article just gave news about a music video being filmed, which proves nothing about the release of the single. You can choose to keep the days and months, but I'm not too sure if another reviewer would approve. Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, I might just stick to year, then.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• use "rowspan=x" for the album names; you don't have to repeat them each row.

  Not using rowspan was another thing implemented in the changes by User:Izno and myself to comply with MOS:ACCESS, because some screen-readers have difficulty with the rowspan.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  That's tough. Do you know of a discussion about this somewhere? (Perhaps this may affect many articles). The "good example" tables in MOS:DTT happen to use rowspan. Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, so it looks like using rowspan for year is okay. It might just be an issue with the right-most column. This edit and the talk page discussion set the precedent, the issue was brought up at the discography Wikiproject but no discussion resulted--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC).

  There are multiple factors here. One: The header/first cell for each row should be the main topic of the row (which is the song I think for most of these tables). This is because screen readers read left to right (normal humans do as well). Two: In data tables, any row/colspan that isn't in the headers typically causes difficulty for screen readers as well, so those as well are/should be removed.

  Yes, these issues affect many other articles. Editors who know about accessibility will sometimes clean them up, but more often we try to act as force multipliers by educating about these topics because there's just so much wiki to cover. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is no "sales" column in the tables; you can remove "sales" from the table captions.

This was done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Charts are listed in artist's original country followed by alphabetical order of chart name (e.g. "US Gospel" follows "US Christian" (Sorry, but you will have to rearrange most of the columns in the tables).

Done. It's actually an easy fix using Visual Editor (one of the few cases where Visual Editor is better than wiki-text for table editing).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• However, list the Bubbling Under column first.
• The standard maximum amount of columns for a discography table is ten—you'll have to remove some in the tables that list more than ten.

  Yep, I thought this was getting unwieldy. There's a complication that I'll mention below.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Use the real chart name: R&B → R&B/HH

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Subcharts are not be listed when a song has charted on the main chart:
  • For example, if even just one of Lecrae's songs has charted on Hot Christian Songs (which has occurred), do not add a column for Christian Digital Charts. For songs that did not chart on the main Hot Christian Songs Chart, add a — in the Hot Christian Songs slot with an {{efn}} next to it listing the Christian Digital peak, or given that Christian Airplay is also a subchart, pick between either (usually the highest peak).

    Okay, so for this and the need to reduce to 10 columns max: Yeah, I see why this is. Where I'm not sure what to do is that there are songs that have only charted on a subchart. What do I do in those cases? Especially in the case of "other charted songs"? I'm thinking maybe change the entire layout and use Template:Single chart?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

    The Template:Single chart is used in the "Charts" section of a song or album article; I haven't seen it used in a discography. You can still use the same format for the other songs charted table. If the songs have only charted in a subchart, then you still label the column with the main chart but add footnotes with its peak on the subchart. Would you like me to code a small example on here of how this could look? Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

    I understand what you mean, there's already an example of this in the studio album section with Let the Trap Say Amen. The problem I'm seeing is that there are songs like "Dum Dum" that only charted on a sub-chart, without charting on a main chart. Do I just list them as a row of blanks for the maincharts but with the footnotes for subchart peaks?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

    That's what I've seen in other articles. Heartfox (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  • This also applies to the Gospel Digital column (replace peaks with —{{efn}} in Gospel Songs slots), and others.
    • Good work so far, but there is a fair bit to do... I'd advise you look over WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS for what columns are permitted when for the singles, and take a look at WP:DISCOGSTYLE (while it's a dormant proposal most of these guidelines are followed by most articles). This is my first time reviewing anything so I don't know exactly what I'm doing lol but I do have some experience with discography articles and I didn't want to let this sit in the review pile. Good luck! Heartfox (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

      Thank you, what I haven't commented on are what I'll work on implementing tomorrow.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

      I haven't gone through this, but you may want to check the Christian radio release archives here, and others in case you find Lecrae and then can use it as a better source. Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

      Ooh, thank you for that link, that will be helpful in general.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Question, Heartfox: Top Rap Albums is now a subset of R&B/Hip-Hop, but the creation of the Top R&B chart as a subchart came about after Lecrae was charting on the Top Rap Albums. I can note the split, but is there justification for keeping the Rap Albums charts since he was on those for years before the change was introduced?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You may want to ask the Discography Wikiproject. Heartfox (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I raised the question on Wikipedia talk:Record charts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Heartfox, how does it look now? I think I addressed everything that you brought up.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  Heartfox, what do you think now? I've updated the urls, provided archived-urls where necessary, and updated the chart entries. I believe all the issues that you brought up have been resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• 3family6, the charts used look appropriate.
• You don't have to provide a footnote for the position on the subchart if it's already charted on the main chart (they're pretty much redundant).

• I included a citation at the first example of each chart in the footnotes, but deleted the rest.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• If you choose to link each instance of Billboard or other publications, make sure all of them have wikilinks (e.g., ref 32 and 80 don't, but others do).

• I think I got all these.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the albums table, the other US charts should follow US, not BEL and CAN (same for mixtapes table).

• Okay, I'd actually thought this. Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• As you've chosen not to use abbreviations for the chart titles in other tables, BEL and CAN should be spelled out.

• I tried to abbreviate as best I could, now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Specify which Belgian chart region you're using (Flanders or Wallonia).

• Wallonia specified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Use <br /> in the chart titles for the tables so it's not all on one line with a big column (right now some do and some don't).

• They should all be like this now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• You don't need references for the songs in the other charted songs table as they're already listed in the Billboard references.

I've removed all citations from songs for which there are chart positions cited.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• You may want to limit the length of the song title column in the featured songs table, the final entry is pretty long. I think you could <br /> it. Heartfox (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's when I see things like deliberately ignoring guidelines such as MOS:NUMERO as was done above that I recognize that be promoted to Good Article status does not mean that the article is compliant to any specific guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I apologize. I took the initiative to actually respond to this editor and tried to focus on more relevant things like WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS and WP:DISCOGSTYLE and hadn't done a thorough review of the entire MOS. Heartfox (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've merged the R&B/Hip-Hop chart listings and Rap chart listings together, and put Rap charts in the footnotes. Heartfox, anything else that I need to do?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from TRM

(WikiCup entry)

• Don't use EP without explaining it first.

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "reached No. 1 on " why do we have that in the prose, why isn't it "number one"? Or vary it with "topped the chart" or similar.

  I'm not sure what the issue is here, "No. 1" is consistent with MOS:NUMERO.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Christian hip hop site" do you mean website?

  Yes. Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• " 53rd Grammy Awards" vs " 2013 Grammy Awards" and both redirect! Be consistent with how you refer to the ceremonies.

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "As of September 2014, he has sold over" nearly six years ago, and he's had gold/platinum albums since, no chance of an update?

  Updated. It's over 3 million now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• " certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)" i would split the links, so link "certified" to the certification article, and RIAA to the RIAA article.

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Gospel charts[15]" missing a full stop.

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the charts need to be explained if they're not linked, e.g. I thought NET meant Netherlands, but it turns out to mean Internet.

  There doesn't seem to be any articulated standard here for the abbreviations, so I'll see what I can do to be more clear. If anything is still unclear, please let me know specifically which ones.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Where is "Don't Waste Your Life" referenced?

• I'm actually not sure now whether or not this was ever described as a single. The only internet references I can find to it call it a "song". I've moved it into the "other charted songs" section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Where is note D referenced?
• Where is note F referenced?
• Where are "High" and note G referenced?
• Same for notes H and I.
• In fact, all notes which make claims of chart positions must be referenced.

  This conflicts with the feedback from Heartfox above, who thought that the footnotes and chart listings were overcited. The first instance of each chart-listing mention has a citation. So they all are referenced, not all have an immediate citation. "High" now has a cited reference.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• There are 104 spaced hyphens, these should be en-dashes, per MOS.

I'll get to work on this.

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave this here for now, I'll come back once we've dealt with these issues. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the long delay, The Rambling Man, my wife was visiting and I've been having trouble with my laptop. Please see my above comments and the accompanying edits.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Further comments from ChrisTheDude

Completely forgot about this one, humblest apologies. A handful of further/final comments from me.....

• I agree with TRM above that the chart column headings need clarifying. I can't see anything, for example, to explain what "CLASS DIG" means.

  I've tried to clarify things, please let me know if there's anything still to fix--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree that notes such as "Charted at No. 2 on the Gospel Digital Songs chart" need sourcing

  Please see above. These are referenced, with a citation for the first occurrence. I removed the repeated citations due to Heartfox's above concerns about the citations being redundant.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• A couple of the videos have no director listed, is this information not known? If so, put something to that effect.

  Some of the videos do not provide the director(s), and I've been unable to find the information online. Whether this truly is unanswerable, I don't know.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for your feedback, ChrisTheDude, apologies for the delay in my response.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my computer was being repaired and so I missed that this review had been revived. I'll get to these tonight.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies for taking so long to check back. Could you add footnote(s) to make clear what the charts are that aren't wikilinked in the column headings (GOS, Internet, etc)? And if the director of a video is unknown, put "unknown" so that people don't think you've just accidentally left it blank...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Will do!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  This should be all set, ChrisTheDude.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Sooooooooo many sources... I will get to this tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• I appreciate all the archive links :)
• link HipHopDX in ref 5

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Billboard missing link in ref 41

  I think you mis-numbered this. Which reference?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I realized that the number change was due to an edit of mine, I'll find the reference.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think that I already fixed this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "SoundCloud, archived..." in ref 45 be "SoundCloud. Archived..." ?

  This was autogenerated by the template.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Who are "Philip Rood and Chad Horton" and why are they in some Rapzilla refs but not others?

  They are the publishers of Rapzilla. This is an inconsistency. Fixed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Your 3 "DaSouth" refs are all formatting differently, please standardize them

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• ref 63 is missing website/publisher

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reach Records link in ref 64

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• The MOS says that titles shouldn't be in all caps, even if thats the original publication, fix these for ref 73

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• HipHopDX link for ref 89

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• AllMusic link for ref 105

  Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Got through half (ref 113) will do other half later. The fact that most of these are just missing links is a good sign. Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, comments on other half below:
• There's still much inconsistencies with the Rapzilla refs
• Ref 137 missing author
• ref 143 missing author
• the second ref in 147 is missing the author's full name
• Link "Vimeo" in ref 192 (and youtube in 193 and 194)
• ref 218 missing retrieval date and the "via youtube" thing
• Just these small fixes and you're good Aza24 (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

These all should be fixed, please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You missed a little but I went ahead and fixed it. Great work here, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looks like everything has already been addressed. ~ HAL333 01:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of Florida hurricanes (2000–present)

Notified: Titoxd, Hurricanehink, WikiProject Tropical cyclones

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has fell way below the class of Featured List. Some parts are outdated, unreferenced, and/or written poorly.~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delist I didn't realize until looking at the article history, it became a featured list almost at the start. This is how the article was when made featured in 2007. I am not against the article losing featured status. It's been 13 years since the promotion. I would love to improve the article and then have it reviewed with our current guidelines. (This is in no way implying the article in 2007 was not of great quality.) Editors got interested with storms during the 2004-05 seasons and more recently 2017 to now. – The Grid (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Netural I feel that the article could be brought up to scratch quite easily, however, I do wonder if we really do need to split the List of Florida hurricanes into six separate lists. I realise that there are over 500 systems, however, I am currently researching Tropical cyclones in Fiji and have found well over 300 systems, but am not intending to split it into several lists as things stand. I would also ask what the significance of the split years for Florida are: (ie: Pre 1900, 1900, 1949/1950, 1974/1975, 1999/2000) I look at some of the entries on the lists and see that they are in need of trimming back to just a couple of sentences. Debby 2000 for example could be better written with something along the lines of: Hurricane Debby was forecasted to move through the Flordia Keys as a hurricane, which prompted a mandatory evacuation for all non-residents. However, Debby dissipated before it's remnant tropical wave, produced heavy rainfall and strong winds across southern Florida? Jason Rees (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jason Rees: That's what happens to featured lists that were listed years ago. People don't care about the class and they just go on and put unsourced information. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    • It seems the lists were split by 25 years which I believe is the textbook definition of a generation. – The Grid (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delist — Article has been rotting over the years and updates have been of insufficient quality. This requires a complete overhaul and thorough research to get back to FL status. Splitting these in 25-year increments is fine given the multitude of storms that impact the state in some way. It makes navigation easier for readers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I decided to curiously view the WikiHistory of the article. The amount of editing matches what I stated earlier. The number of edits increased since 2015 and the quality began to decline. That would be an important point to remember when it comes time to improve the article back to featured status. – The Grid (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

List of presidents of Portugal

Notified: RickMorais, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Portugal

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe its doesn't fit the criteria anymore. There's basically no source, and no improvement after over two weeks notification on talk page. Jarodalien (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe give it a few more weeks? The page has seen some changes since you put it up for removal and I think I can improve on it. But I'm not sure at the moment if it can be improved to the point that all of it is covered by references, so I'm not against removing the feature and then adding it later on. CriMen1 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Just go ahead make improvement that you can, and I don't think we should really care if the feature status removed or not because we could always promoted again when it fits.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster

Notified: User:Killervogel5, WikiProject Baseball

• Including: Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (B), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (C), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (D), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (E–F), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (G), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (H), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (I–J), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (K), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (L), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (M), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (N–O), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (P–Q), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (R), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (S), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (T–V), Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (W–Z)

Lists are showing significant aging, including:

• Player rosters have not been updated in a full nine years.

• Stats need updating for certain players where the player played for the Phillies beyond 2011 (ie Jimmy Rollins in Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (R) played for the Phillies for three more years.) Updating for those already on the list.

• Template:Note label is depreciated and should be replaced on all lists.

• This article (Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster) needs updating to reflect new players.

• Ref 16 and 17 on Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster are dead.

• Once every individual page is updated then the lead for the main page Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster needs to be updated for the total number of players for each letter. Same for the table in Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster.

• Leads in every page need to be updated for the numbers of players for that letter or letters.

• A lot of the files for living or recently deceased people need personality rights templates at the Commons.

• A lot of the lists have something similar to: "Among the 34 batters in this list, catcher Hezekiah Allen has the highest batting average: a .667 mark, with two hits in his three plate appearances." I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, especially when Baseball Reference doesn't allow cross comparisons amongst players until a certain benchmark is hit for pa/game. Same with pitchers.

• I would recommend removing the "Italic text indicates that the player is a member of the Phillies' active (25-man) roster" altogether, because honestly it's tedious to update. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Honestly, I'm just going to call out delist now. It's so out of date it'd be a massive project. The table gives 2,081 players (1,037 hitters and 871 pitchers). The Baseball-Reference citations, when taken together, give 3,104 players (2,090 hitters and 1,014 pitchers). There's some overlap here, as any of the pitchers who pitched in a game without a DH would also be considered as a hitter, I believe (they'd appear on the lineup card, even if they didn't get an at-bat), but that indicates a massive amount of updating needed. No way that gets done in a reasonable amount of time. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delist and consider merge or AFD JFC if you want baseball statistics, just go to baseball-reference.com. We shouldn't be awarding featured status (or 18! stars) to a mere import of a single webpage of data. Reywas92^Talk 21:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delist all – It's a shame because these lists were in great condition when they were promoted, but the nominator hasn't been active in years and the lists have fallen out-of-date. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead

Notified: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Politics, and User:Ironholds

This 2008 nomination has really suffered over the years:

• The lead prose is severely lacking.
• The lead is only supported by one reference, and has numerous uncited sentences.
• The table contains numerous citation needed or full citation needed tags.
• References have a number of consistency issues, such as linking or proper fields, as well as placement issues (why suddenly add references at the end of the date in the late 2000s)
• A number of, albeit minor, linking and formatting issues (the picture below the infobox, redlinking of Coalite plc, stuff like that)
• Not necessarily a disqualifier, but it would be nice if more references were accessible to support WP:V.

Needs some TLC or should be delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

List of extant papal tombs

Notified: Gerbis, WikiProject Catholicism

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the issues indicated in the templates added on 5 March 2020 (the reasons for Gerbis adding the templates may be found in Talk:List of extant papal tombs#One source). The article may fail to meet Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 3a, considering that the content may be outdated. Σανμοσα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 03:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

List of national anthems

Notified: WikiProject Countries & WikiProject Songs

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... It has no lead, failing point 2 of the list criteria. Furthermore, it only has 30 refs, half of which are in the "Introduction" rather than at each national anthem, failing point 3. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment WP:SOFIXIT. References in the wrong place in the list can easily be moved. If there isn't one, the article on each remaining anthem should have a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Already created a lede, moved all of the refs out of the main section and supplied others from their articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Finished up to Finland and we're at 100 refs. Many were taken from the linked articles, but several are not well sourced or do not have RSes, so I used The CIA World Fact Book. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Walter Görlitz has done excellent work on this, but we need a reference for each entry at a minimum. I believe that without critical commentary, the categorisation at the bottom of anthems by key is trivia, so should be removed. (The alternative is to replace it with thoroughly sourced prose analysis in the lead of which keys are most common and why. But even this may be better suited to National anthem, which is where I recommend the excellent image is moved to.) If these two things are done then I support keeping the list; otherwise, I support removal. — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • These concerns have now been addressed, except that Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Somaliland and South Ossetia still lack references in the table. Spotchecks done on a couple of entries but Transnistria isn't verified by the given citation (it only gives a different English translation of the anthem name, not the composer, date etc.). — Bilorv (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Bilorv: I have added refs for those you listed. Aza24 (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Keep: outstanding work by both Walter Görlitz and Aza24 has brought this up to current FL standards. — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This list does include some outdated phrasing such as "This table includes" and needs rewording. Also for some reason "Note: This list is for those who have declared independence and are partially recognized." is not actually a note, but a sentence in the lead to the table? This page is showing its age. Mattximus (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per all. There are plenty of LEADCITEs. The "Key" table can likely be merged in the main table if it isn't crufty, and the orange tag has been up since Septemner 2018. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per Aza24; good job with the work! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delist swaths of unsourced text in table "National anthems of UN member states and observer states". That alone is enough to delist. @Walter Görlitz: do you have an update? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • So are you to say you commented without checking? The refs are now half done. WP:NOTIMELIMIT Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per Therapyisgood --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per above. ~ HAL333 15:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - if those above can give me a day or so I'm gonna take a crack at tidying it up Aza24 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

---

• @Walter Görlitz, Skjoldbro, Mattximus, John M Wolfson, Therapyisgood, Guerillero, and HAL333: Aplogies for pinging you all, but seeing as the article has drastically changed in referencing I figured it was appropriate. I have now put references for every country, a lot of them from their official government websites, or a news source based in the country, but when I couldn't find any of these, I used CIA factbook or the very helpful anthem encyclopedia. I have (perhaps boldly) removed the key table entirely, since I have found that many of the countries on it seem to be placed in the wrong section, and it is completely unsourced. Also, imo it seems unhelpful, in the sense that many of the anthems are often changed key depending on the performer or orchestration. (Orchestra playing it vs band vs choir etc) Anyways, I would appreciate any comments on the current state of the article, since it now seems close to being saved. Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for finishing what I started. It looks better now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Walter Görlitz: Indeed. Your work had created a fabulous list and I felt bad seeing it demoted for a lack of references, glad I could help. Aza24 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

My two concerns still have not been addressed, so I’m still leaning towards delist. Mattximus (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I've put the two notes in actual notes and removed the "this table includes" if that addresses it? Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

yes much better, my concerns are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• The name in the "Lyricist" column needs to be sorted by last name in some instances. Ie Francis Scott Key should not sort as "Francis" but rather "Key". Template:Sort name could be used, although I don't know all the naming conventions for all the names.

• The table in the "Anthems of partially recognized states and territories" section should be sortable.
  • Done.

• What makes nationalanthems.info reliable?

• Several of the references need accessdates, ie 34 and 36.
  • Added for 34 and 36.

• Ref 50 does not appear to be in English. A trans title would be nice.

• Ref 57: no space before colon.
  • Fixed.

• Ref 94 is not in English.
  • Changed ref

• Citing the Factbook variously as www.cia.gov, The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency., and The World Factbook. CIA.
  • Fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Right now I still support delisting. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood: I've been getting distracted with other things and didn't get a chance to go through many of the existing references (the ones there before I came to it), seemingly mostly where these issues arise from. Thanks for your comments, I'll work them out in the next few days – I'll probably tweak the lead around too, it could be better. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)