Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process 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.

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. 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 in a timely manner; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or
  • reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting.

Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

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

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. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''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. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, 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.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

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



The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

edit
Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several featured lists covering the international goals of several prominent footballers, but Pelé's is not yet among those. I've significantly expanded the lead and sourced all of his goals, so I'm hopeful this now meets the FL criteria. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I have nominated an article/list, but here I am with another, List of SB19 live performances! This list documents the live performances that the Filipino boy band SB19 have done since their debut, including tours, one-off concerts, awards shows, television, and more. I began revamping this list last February, but only progressed much later in May, and I finally finished it this week. This has to be the hardest list I have got my hands on revamping; sorting their performances, working with multiple sources, and the size of the article is definitely a pain.

The revamping of lists like this is part of my efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of SB19, hopefully getting them to have their featured topic soon! I believe I have improved the list pretty significantly from its previous state with the criteria in mind, and I think this list is deserving to be promoted as a featured list. I would be happy to address all your concerns, suggestions, and feedback; they are much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers in advance who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another list of the number ones on the chart for songs that the parents of the rock and roll kids liked :-) In this year, the chart was dominated by "Ol' Blue Eyes", one of the most respected song stylists of the 20th century, yet the biggest-selling single of the year (of any genre) was by an actual serving soldier..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Support promotion on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

edit

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • All sources with a link are live and/or have an archive link
  • Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for
  • Assuming good faith on sources I do not have access to

Feedback:

  • Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
  • Ref 9 – Add |publisher=[[Associated Press]] and |url-access=subscription
  • Ref 12 – Inconsistent formatting with refs 3 and 5. Recommend changing publisher to work.
  • General works cited reference 4 – Joel Whitburn should be wikilinked here since they're wikilinked in the previous two works cited

Good stuff ChrisTheDude, as always. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - all done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

edit
  • No further comments on prose. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt texts
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • I do not think "at number one" is necessary in this part (before being replaced at number one by Al Martino's "Spanish Eyes") as it can be easily understood from the overall context of the sentence. That and it would help with some of the repetition of the "number one" phrasing around this part.
  • For the Staff Sgt. Barry Sadler, I think it would be best to spell out Sergeant instead of using the shortened version.

Wonderful work as always. I only have two very minor and nitpick-y comments, and once both are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - both done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): 48JCL 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC), Tone[reply]

This is another world heritage site. Thanks Tone for the format and letting me use it for consistency. Currently, WP:BW has no FLs so this would be really great to have. Took a long time to write. Third time here. All other times many FLCs fail, but of course third time’s the charm. Botswana has seven sites on the tentative list and two world heritage sites. yeah 48JCL 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
MPGuy2824
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
    • Done
  • Try to incorporate some of the first sentence of the Tsodilo article into the description here.
    • Done
  • Wikilink quartzitic, endorheic
    • Endorheic done, quartzitic is a duplink
  • Add a centered emdash when an image isn't available.
    • Done
  • For every entry, the description should tell us why it is on the list. Ideally this happens in the first sentence. e.g. Why is Toutswemogala different from every other elongated flat-topped hill? The same issue exists with Gcwihaba Caves and Tswapong Hills Cultural Landscape to take two more examples.
  • "The area is resembled through its stone age historic sites." What does this mean?
    • Resolved
  • One ref is missing an archive link.
    • Oops, done
  • That's it for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EN-Jungwon
  • Some references use |website=UNESCO World Heritage Centre and some use |publisher=UNESCO World Heritage Centre. I checked other world heritage site FLs, and they use the publisher parameter. So I suggest changing all the |website=UNESCO World Heritage Centre to |publisher=UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

done

  • |language=en is unnecessary for english sources.

Removed per other flcs

Keeping it is not an issue and I'll support this list either way. -- EN-Jungwon 13:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EN-Jungwon 01:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, you already nominated it, I thought you were planning to do it a bit later. Let me go through in a couple of days to check if there are any further tweaks from my side. As a side note, my typical cutoff for nominations are three sites on the main list, but maybe we can go to two because there are several tentative sites. --Tone 15:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Lionel Cristiano? 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very good list, I don't think there's anything missing. Lionel Cristiano? 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Lionel Cristiano? 13:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionel Cristiano: Why have you pinged me? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Lionel Cristiano? 13:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit
  • The lead is far too short and does not provide an adequate summary of the article
  • Per MOS:BOLD, bolding should not be used to identify items meeting a certain criterion. Use a colour and symbol instead
  • Why do a handful of entries have no number in the first column? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dajasj

edit
  • I would recommend putting the map in the top right corner. It does not need to be that big in the bottom and it gives more context in the top than an image of Istanbul. If you keep it there, I would suggest changing the width to 960px (which is the default width voor Vector 2022). Dajasj (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit

Comments by Mattximus

edit
  • Featured lists no longer use self-referential sentences: "In this article, cities are sorted by official population." That sentence can be removed. As with "The rankings". Just needs a bit of a rewording. If you do need to refer to the list itself it can go in notes at the appropriate part of the list.
  • Much of the lead is framed towards explaining caveats of the list and not actually summarizing the list itself. This is a major issue with this page, you need to summarize the list in the lead.
  • I'm confused at the inclusion criteria, why is Greater London included (not City of London) but Greater Paris isn't?
  • And we need to distinguish somehow the population estimates versus actual census counts. Estimates can vary wildly from actual population counts.
  • Note for Istanbul should be a sentence and not point form, and should have a reference.
  • What exactly is "official population"
  • Capital cities in bold should be in legend or note as a colour and symbol.

Oppose for now, lots of issues found but not insurmountable. Mattximus (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Oppose, main contributor is blocked. I have a feeling that As some cities have narrow boundaries and others wide ones, the list may not give an accurate view of the comparative magnitude of different places, and the figures in the list should be treated with caution: for example, Paris is the second most populous urban area in Europe, but the strict definition of the administrative limits of the City of Paris results in a far lower population shown in the table. should be copyedited and I also highly doubt the section Map needs a heading. 48JCL 22:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief detour to the world of higher education, I'm back on the trail of number one songs. In 1965, Billboard changed how they compiled their easy listening chart to make it completely independent of the Hot 100 for the first time. While the pop charts were being ruled by the likes of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, the middle of the road listing was dominated by old Elvis songs...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

edit
  • began compiling an Easy Listening top 40 wholly independently of the Hot 100 -- should it be wholly independent?
  • That's all I could come up with on prose. Great work on this series. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:We_Five.png appears to be using px size
  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review passed. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

edit
  • I can't find anything beyond a missing wikilink to Joel Whitburn in the 2007 source, which I've added myself. Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

edit

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • No dead links
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Ref 2 – add |via=[[Google Books]]
  • Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been

I'm confident you'll make the change to 2, so I'll just go ahead and support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed I have :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EN-Jungwon
  • Ref 10 seems to require a subscription.

That's all I could find. -- EN-Jungwon 10:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: - parameter added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 14:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 04:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given my current FLN List of cities in Donetsk Oblast is effectively ready and will likely be promoted in the next day or two, I'm going to go ahead and start this one. Most of the list content is copied over from the stuff I created at the Donetsk Oblast list, which was already reviewed during that article's FLN, so I'm guessing there won't be any major issues to resolve with this one. In any case tho, excited to get this one through and continue the series! Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

  • Do the raions cover the whole oblast or just part of the oblast? This should be explicitly mentioned in the second paragraph.
Fixed? Yup, I reworded it to say The eight raions that make up the oblast are Alchevsk... and Svatove raion but let me know if additional rewording is needed.
  • "War in Donbas" should be changed to "war in Donbas".
Fixed
Fixed
  • I don't think linking City in the table is necessary as it's an everyday word as per MOS:OVERLINK.
Removed link
  • The space before reference 15 should be removed as per MOS:REFSPACE.
Fixed
  • Why is Luhansk in italics in the table?
Luhansk is the oblast capital so I though I'd put some distinguishing feature on it similar to how other list of cities articles put an asterisk on capitals. If it helps tho, I don't mind taking it out... I didn't really expect it to be an issue.
It's just that without a key, readers might not know why Luhansk is italicised. Also, as per MOS:TABLEKEY, I don't think italics is considered accessible. A symbol is needed instead and a key used. Given that Luhansk is already mentioned as the capital in the lead, you could just do away with italicising/using a symbol in the table altogether. Otherwise, a key and symbol are needed.
Fixed I just took it out.

Steelkamp (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp thanks for the edits and reply! Let me know if there's anything else left to do. Dan the Animator 04:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

In addition to the above.....

  • Can't see any reason for the former names of cities to be in italics
Removed italics
  • None of the image captions are complete sentences, so they should not have full stops.
Fixed
  • Most of the image captions contains facts (eg "Popasna, a major railway city heavily damaged during the invasion") which are not mentioned anywhere else in the articles, so these will need to be sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources


  • Maybe it's my browser, but there is no black line between the header and the first row (as is between all other rows).
The table looks alright on my end (I'm using the desktop version on a Dell laptop) so could be your browser?
  • I believe the columns with numbers should be aligned to the right, so it is visually easier to compare the numbers.
I aligned the two population columns and the pop. change column to the right but it leaves excessive whitespace imo. I'll leave it on for now so you can take a look but if its alright I think its actually easier to compare the numbers with center-alignment since there's less space separating them (alternatively, if there's a way to decrease the width of the columns to get rid of at least some of the empty space, that would also work for me).
  • The images are great on desktop, but on mobile, it is simply more to scroll past before I get to the table (which is the most important thing in this list ofc). So I would recommend limiting the number of images (maybe only in the introduction).
Fixed? I didn't remove any images since I really think five images is fine (also there's no space in the intro/lead so that's not feasible) but I added in a link on the top of the images in the list section that mobile users can click to skip (jump to) the table directly, bypassing the images. Also tested it myself on mobile and it works fine! This type of link is usually used on other similar types of list articles too with images so this should solve the issue but let me know if there's anything else to do!
  • It think the table should make clear that the Ukrainian links point to another Wikipedia language version.
Fixed? I don't disagree but I can't figure out a good way to do this. I changed the title of the column to "Name (in Ukrainian Wikipedia)" but is this be too ambiguous? (e.g., some users might be unsure whether the name is actually displayed in the Ukrainian language or if the Ukrainian names are correct (since Wikipedia, in any language, is not WP:RS)). Interested to hear your thoughts about this!
  • The Commonscat template can be moved to See also, to minimize whitespace.
Fixed I just moved to the External links section instead in-line with how a lot of other articles do it.
Dajasj (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions Dajasj! Let me know if there's anything else I can do with the article (also fyi I'll also be applying any suggestions here to my other FLN List of cities in Donetsk Oblast. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies!
  • I am now on another laptop, and there is no issue with the top line any more, so it was my problem...
No worries! Good thing it fixed itself! ;)
  • The column could be "Name in Ukrainian (Link to Ukrainian Wikipedia). It is a bit long, but that's not a big issue because other column names are also long.
After careful consideration and testing out a few different things, and also realizing that apparently there's an English Wikipedia page about the Ukrainian Wikipedia, I settled with: Name (on Ukrainian Wikipedia). My thoughts behind this: the link to Ukrainian Wikipedia says in its first line in the lead that it is a "Ukrainian-language...online encyclopedia" and its already implied that the name is in Ukrainian since its coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia so the "in Ukrainian" part is redundant imo; the blue highlighting that Wikipedia projects use to indicate links to other pages already implies that the links go to the Ukrainian Wikipedia and the word "on" is sufficient for this too I think. Let me know if this title is alright with you but just to let you know, I feel strongly that this is the best choice after thinking about it quite a bit the past few days.
  • Aligning to the right looks perfect on my current screen and on mobile. You could set a "width" to these columns, so there is a max width to these columns on wider screens (where it tries to write "Population" on one line). That should limit the whitespace. Dajasj (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dajasj! After testing out the width parameter markup, turns out its better just to keep it as-is with the right alignment and no additional markup.
@Dajasj: And I think that should covers everything! Let me know if there's anything else I can do/if the article's alright now and thanks again for all the suggestions! :) Dan the Animator 04:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Dajasj: its been a few days now so please let me know if there's still anything holding up your support. Hope all's well! Dan the Animator 21:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not sure why there is a jump to table link, that can be removed (from both this table, and the one in Donetsk).
Earlier in the review, Dajasj suggested removing images due to the need to scroll a bit on mobile. I think the number of images is perfectly fine and works really well on desktop so to address those concerns, I added the jump link. I don't have a strong preference for keeping or removing the jump link so if Dajasj's alright with it, I can take it off.
  • This article is quite good, but the image captions need a bit of work. The cities are not smallest, or largest, as the areas are not given. They are the most populous, or have the smallest population, or some other wording.
Fixed
  • Citation for 2001 census broken for me.
Fixed? applied the same changes I made with the Donetsk list so if that one's alright now then this should be fine too.
Thanks Mattximus!!! :D Let me know if there's anything else I can do! Dan the Animator 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a comprehensive list of equipment for the discipline of rock climbing. While individual elements of rock climbing equipment will change/evolve, the essence is quite stable. Rock climbing is now a new Olympic Sport, so I think this area will get even more attention in the future. I had proposed it as a GA but the recommendation was that the article was more of a list, which is correct, and that it would be a good suggestion as an FL per Talk:Rock-climbing equipment/GA1. thank you. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

This review will take me a little while – feel free to ping me if I go more than a few days without following up.

  • Images need alt text
  Done
  • "And finally" → "Finally,"
  Done
  • The lead lists modern devices with the older devices they replaced – where is this information supported in the body? For instance, I see no mention of chockstones after the lead.
  Done, I have mentioned chockstones in the body, where they were replaced by nuts.
  • Not technically wrong, but the list has a tendency to overuse parentheses; some of them can be reworked
    • Example: Under Type of climbing, "and its X variant" doesn't need parentheses
  Done, hopefully that is better now.
    • Another example: The second paragraph of Ropes (starting with "Some climbers will use...") has 4 sets of parentheses in one sentence. This ends up feeling really choppy.
  Done, and agree, hopefully better now.
  • Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, write out acronyms where they first appear: UIAA, CEN, OSHA, maybe CE marking?
  Done, CE marking is the actual name here.
  • "in lieu CEN" → "in lieu of CEN"
  Done
  • "which are (circa 7–8 mm)" – misuse of parentheses
  Done
  • "(or 'tape')," – no comma needed
  Done

RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted that you are willing to help @RunningTiger123. This is (clearly) my first attempt at Featured article status. I have a few GAs under my belt and I think I am writing at a reasonable GA standard, but have little concept of FA stardard, but if you are up for it, I would love to learn and happy to spend time on this with you at whatever pace you prefer. thanks again :) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "European European Committee for Standardization" – redundant
  • "e.g. the asymmetric/offset D-shape is the most common" – misuse of "e.g."
    • "e.g." means "for example" – if you substitute "for example" in place of "e.g." and it doesn't make sense, you're using the wrong phrase
  • "(and materials used)" – no need for parentheses
  • "e.g. they require little in the way of gear-carrying loops" – another misuse of "e.g."
  • "e.g. to fit around heaving winter clothing" – same thing
  • Link Petzl and Wild Country at first occurrence (as well as any other companies)
  • First paragraph under Belay devices is unsourced
  • "e.g. a static rope that is hanging from a fixed anchor" – another "e.g."
  • "Petzel Traxion" – typo for Petzl
  • "Petzel Micro Traxion, and Camp Lift" – no comma needed, also same typo?
  • "SCLDs" – should be SLCDs? (occurs twice)
  • "like a Hex" – use lowercase for consistency
  • Don't hyphenate "bolt-hangers" for consistency
  • "stands one on aider" – I think this should be "stands on one aider"?
  • "Rock climbing hammers are mainly used..." – bullet point doesn't follow the same opening format as all of the others
  • A lot of bullet points under Miscellaneous equipment are unsourced
  • "is used by all rock climbers" – all is a strong word, so it either needs to be clearly sourced or removed
  • Remove comma after parentheses for medical tape
  • Suggest archiving web sources (see WP:IABOT)

RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third nomination of an NFL team season list and I believe it meets all of our criteria. The format is based on past successful nominations of List of Detroit Lions seasons and List of New Orleans Saints seasons. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

edit
  • No issues with prose in the lead. I do think "winningest" is a bit informal, perhaps consider tweaking that in the caption.
  • I think the image placement needs to be redone. Perhaps move Tom's image under the "Seasons" section so it doesn't overcrowd your lead. (similar to the other FLs of Detroit and New Orleans). Seems File:Tom Coughlin crop.jpg is a much better image. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pseud 14: Thank you for suggestion that image, I've replaced it in the article and moved it under the season section, per your suggestion. I've also tweaked the caption. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "The Jaguars are one of four teams to have never played in a Super Bowl" - I'd change this to "The Jaguars are one of four current NFL teams to have never played in a Super Bowl" as there are plenty of other teams that have never played in a Super Bowl.
  • "Despite never having played in a Super Bowl, the team has played in the AFC Championship Game on three occasions (1996, 1999, and 2017)" - I'd be tempted to reframe this as "The team has played in the AFC Championship Game on three occasions (1996, 1999, and 2017) but lost each time"
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Took your advice on both, done! Thank you very much for the feedback :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • "The team plays its home games at EverBank Stadium in Central Jacksonville." The ref after this does not support this statement. Also, it should probably be "central".
  • Wikilink the first instance of "playoffs".
  • Is there a reason that the 1995 row is set to sort at the top?
  • Sorting by the "Finish" column leads to some weird stuff happening with the "All-time regular & postseason record" columns. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824: I prepped this list so long ago and I clearly should have given it a better lookover since I prepped it when I Was much less experienced than I am now. All of the sorting issues have been resolved and I've added a wikilink at the first instance of playoffs. I've also actually updated their location to "downtown Jacksonville" with a reference. Thank you very much for the review and feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the keys (T-#, Pct, ‡Super Bowl champions and *Conference champions) aren't applicable to this team/list and can be removed unless you are keeping them in for consistency with other similar lists.
    • Is "at" a common abbreviation for "against" in the Hand Egg world? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I hid those portions of the key, thanks for that suggestion @MPGuy2824. The "at" is a standard descriptor in most North American sports from what I'm aware of. It's meant to represent that the game was not a home game. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajasj

edit
  • Do the bottom three rows (the Totals) really need to be double bold?
  • I understand why you do it, but I think it would be simpler if you only link to the page of the team of that season, and not the season page (so skip the first column). A reader can still reach it through the team page and it makes the table smaller which is great for mobile.
  • I also understand why you included League and Conference, but I would only do that when there are different values. Now it makes the table more complex (and I expect a row to be different).
  • It might be too late to change the format, but I would prefer the postseason in a seperate table. Right now, it makes the table unnecessary long (so I can compare less on my desktop screen), while only adding info to one column. Same point for Awards btw.
  • I believe the Head Coach can be made sortable, so you can sort to get the season with the most wins for a head coach.
  • I have not used it myself so I am not sure of the downsides, but excluding the final rows from sorting would be great. Dajasj (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj:
    • Do the bottom three rows (the Totals) really need to be double bold? – I hadn't noticed they were doubled. It doesn't really affect anything, but it's been removed.
    • I understand why you do it, but I think it would be simpler if you only link to the page of the team of that season, and not the season page (so skip the first column). A reader can still reach it through the team page and it makes the table smaller which is great for mobile. – You say easily, but when you navigate to the season pages there's no direct links to the season themselves in many cases. I don't think this would be an improvement to the table or better serve our readers in any way.
    • I also understand why you included League and Conference, but I would only do that when there are different values. Now it makes the table more complex (and I expect a row to be different). – I disagree. The league and conference are relevant and can and have changed for a number of different NFL teams. This is part of the standard format for lists of NFL team seasons for that reason and it would be odd to have this page follow a different format than the rest.
    • It might be too late to change the format, but I would prefer the postseason in a seperate table. Right now, it makes the table unnecessary long (so I can compare less on my desktop screen), while only adding info to one column. Same point for Awards btw. – That may be your preference but I would find two separate tables, one for playoffs and one for the seasons, to be much less informative and to just be a split for the sake of splitting, not to actually make any sort of improvement. The awards column is also reserved for major awards only and isn't bulky or overwhelming in any sense.
    • I believe the Head Coach can be made sortable, so you can sort to get the season with the most wins for a head coach. – This list is focused on the seasons as opposed to the head coaches themselves. While it's not included there, it may be more appropriate for List of Jacksonville Jaguars head coaches. The difficulty in making these tables sortable be sortable in the way you suggest is that coaches sometimes have partial seasons which are split with another coach.
    • I have not used it myself so I am not sure of the downsides, but excluding the final rows from sorting would be great. – That was the intention, and it's been implemented, as per the comments in the section above.
    Thank you for the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the second point, maybe it makes more sense to merge the first column (Season) and the third (column) League? For example linking NFL to 1995 NFL season. That way you won't have to duplicate the years, and you can add a link to the NFL text that is useful. You won't lose any information. Dajasj (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj: The history of the NFL involves a couple of mergers (List of Los Angeles Chargers seasons, List of New England Patriots seasons) teams joining from other leagues (List of Los Angeles Rams seasons), and several teams being independent prior to their joining of the NFL (List of Chicago Bears seasons, List of Green Bay Packers seasons). These examples are just some of the lists for seasons that have already been promoted to featured lists, but this is why these are two separate columns. That's why the information is there and why it's useful, even if to just state that they started as an NFL franchise and have been for the entirety of their existence. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no longer suggesting complete removal. But what if we do it like this (see the link in the second column)? If I'm not mistaken, we don't lose any information, while avoiding duplication in the Year & Team column? Should also work for all teams, or I am then still missing something? Dajasj (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj: You are suggesting removal of a column though. I think your proposed version is also an WP:EASTEREGG, given that you'd expect that shortcut to lead to National Football League. If you want to propose changes to all 32 team lists you'd be better off doing so at WT:NFL because, even if I agreed with the proposed changes, I don't feel comfortable making that sort of wide spread change on all of these articles without proper discussion. Especially considering 16 of them are already featured lists and utilize this format. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj: Do you have any more feedback? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, that's it :) Dajasj (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thank you for your review and feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

edit
  • Why the use of {{clear}}? Seems to just create white space, regardless of the screen size.
  • They have made the playoffs a total of eight times. I would recommend two changes here: get rid of "a total of" as just fluff words, and then I would really recommend moving to the beginning of the paragraph, so it would say something like The Jaguars have made the playoffs eight times, although they are one of four current NFL teams to have never played in a Super Bowl, along with the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, and Houston Texans. This way the paragraph opens with what you are then going to talk about.

I got noting else. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Thank you taking a look over this nomination! I agree, I've removed the clear template and made the changes you've suggested. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the live performances of Taylor Swift, who has recently become the first artist to headline a $1 billion-grossing tour. Kudos to Medxvo for assisting with removing NONRS. Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this still qualify for deletion to quality despite that the person who nominated it for deletion was the FL nominator? 48JCL TALK 20:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at the AfD was keep so I really don't see the issue. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

edit
  • Swift's sixth studio album, Reputation (2017), was supported by negligible television performances -- suggest an alternative wording for negligible, or perhaps since she did little TV performances, you can lead into the Reputation tour directly.
  • It is the first concert tour in history to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue. -- maybe some wording here can be piped to List of highest-grossing concert tours, since it is a notable record and one she currently tops.
  • In the "Concert tours" table, I don't think we need to link the countries/territories (per MOS:OL)
  • In the reference column for all your tables, I would update the abbreviation to "Ref(s)" since it is written as "Reference(s)" when hovered.
  • Great to see this is finally on FLC. Nice work. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Pass

  • Image has alt text
  • Image appropriately licensed
  • Image has succinct caption and relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pseud 14: I've addressed all of your comments except the links to countries. I think while it makes sense to not link "common" countries like U.S., England... there are also "lesser-known" ones like Wales, Northern Ireland... so I decide to link them all to avoid potential demographic biases. Ippantekina (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Maybe just a minor nitpick but not a deal-breaker. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • For the lead's first sentence, shouldn't it be (American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift) rather than (The American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift)? Something about the use of the determiner seems off to me, but I could be wrong though.
  • This list and all other articles within the T.Swift WProject adhere to WP:FALSETITLE, which is not an official MOS but a very helpful guide. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still not a fan of it, but I believe this falls under personal preference so it will not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the lead's second sentence, I do not think "various" adds much and can be cut as the focus seems to be more on the different venues where she has performed.
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance but I would use "television" rather than the acronym in this part (as well as on TV and radio). I would do the same for the "TV shows and specials" section heading.
  • A link for opening act may be helpful.
  • Taylor Swift albums discography is linked twice in the lead.
  • The lead makes a point that The Red Tour was her last tour as a country artist, but it does not specify what genre she transitioned to after that for her subsequent tours.
  • I doubt that the countries need to be linked in the tables as most readers would be familiar with these areas. This kind of thing is brought up in MOS:OVERLINK. Also, since the table is sortable, there are instances where the first time the country appears is not linked. I would limit the links more so to cities and more specific areas like that. I respectfully disagree with your above "potential demographic biases" argument.
  • I responded above to Pseud14 who has the same concern. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did see that response, and your argument there does not convince me. Aoba47 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linking for the tables is inconsistent. The award shows, such as the American Music Awards, are linked in every instance, but the television shows, like Good Morning America, are only linked on the first instance. On top of that, since the table is sortable, readers may encounter an unlinked term before getting to the actual link. To account for that, I would think that everything would need to be linked. Other examples of this would be Rascal Flatts being only linked once in the "As opening act'" table or the song titles only being linked once.
  • Awards shows are linked to the yearly ceremony and thus each link is different. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for that, and thank you for your clarification. I should have checked the awards links more thoroughly. That being said, my other point still stands. Since the tables are sortable, it cannot be controlled which entry a reader may encounter first. Things like songs are currently linked on only the first instance if no sorting is done, but if a readers does sort, they may through multiple, unlinked entries before getting to the link. As I said above, I would think that every item would have to linked in each instance to account for this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes sense as WP:DL does say that duplicate links are allowed in tables. I'll implement this shortly! Ippantekina (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is because the cited references do not include this information. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the One World: Together at Home part, I would include a note that it was done virtually and also include where she filmed her performance if it is known.
  • I would be consistent with either using title case or not in the citation titles.
  • Citation 27 (here), Citation 28 (here), Citation 31 (here), Citation 32 (here), Citation 33 (here), Citation 35 (here), Citation 49 (here), Citation 138 (here), Citation 227 (here), Citation 255 (here), and Citation 265 (here). are no longer active. The CMT ones in general seem to have issues as most just redirect to the home page.
  • Citation 55 (here) should specify that it is in Japanese.
  • I would avoid putting words in all caps like in Citation 71 (here).
  • For Citation 79 (here), I would use the press release citation formatting instead.
  • Citation 121 (here), Citation 123 (here), Citation 133 (here), Citation 154 (here), Citation 220 (here), Citation 247 (here), Citation 248 (here), and Citation 275 (here) are missing the authors. I would honestly check all of the citations without author credits for this. I also believe that Citation 275 should be Time not Time Magazine.
  • Citation 163 (here) is still active for me so I do not think the archived version needs to be used. Same for Citation 166 (here) and Citation 274 (here).
  • The archive for Citation 224 (here) does not support the information provided. Also, the song title should be in single quotation marks as it is presented in the citation title.
  • Citation 231 (here) requires a subscription. That should be noted in the citation template. I would make sure any other instances of this are noted as well.

I am sorry, but I oppose this list for promotion, primarily because of errors in the citations. I have also noticed inconsistencies with how linking is handled in the tables, which would not be as big of an issue by itself. Apologies again, and I would be more than happy to revisit this review once my comments are addressed. You have always done great work so I hope that this does not come across as too harsh or anything overly negative. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Aoba47:, I believe your points are actionable and will act on them. In the meantime I've replied to some of your points above. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Take as much time as you need. I have replied to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aoba47: for the refs. could you kindly specify the article revision that you reviewed so I could better keep track of them? Ippantekina (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not including this earlier. I honestly did not think of doing that, but it makes sense as things will likely change during revision. I believe this version was what I was looking at during the time of this review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (ec with last editor)

edit
  • "She has additionally performed in various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events" - unless usage in US English is different, I would suggest this should be "She has additionally performed at various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events". Certainly in the variety of English spoken in my neck of the woods, one does not perform "in" a music festival. But, as I said, maybe US usage is different......?
  • "which supports all of the albums in Swift's discography." => "which supports all of the albums in her discography."
  • "to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue." - box office revenue surely, unless this is a US usage of which I am unaware
  • Tour names starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name
  • Any particular reason why the first three tables have the name of the event first and the dates second, and then suddenly it switches to the other way round?
  • Did she not perform any songs at "Trails West!" and some of the others, or is it just unknown what she performed? If the latter, I would suggest putting "unknown" or similar, as the dash honestly looks like it means "none"
  • Is there any value in that songs column being sortable given that it will only ever sort based on the first song listed?
  • TV show titles starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name
  • Why are some of the benefit special titles in italics and others not? For example, Children In Need (a UK telethon) is in italics but Stand Up to Cancer (also a UK telethon) is not
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): The Kip (contribs) 22:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having been inspired by @XR228, I've decided to nominate this for FL. After expanding the lead with prose and making some accessibility additions, I believe it successfully meets all FL criteria. The Kip (contribs) 22:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit

The article shouldn't be started off with "This is a complete list of...", per MOS:THISISALIST. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Kip (contribs) 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Lead image should not use forced pixel size, instead use the "upright" parameter, potentially with a multiplier e.g. "upright=1.3"
  • I feel like ice hockey should be specifically mentioned/linked somewhere. Maybe mimic the opening of List of Seattle Kraken draft picks, also currently at FLC
  • "2017 second-round pick Nicolas Hague has played the most games for Vegas of any draft picks" => "2017 second-round pick Nicolas Hague has played the most games for Vegas of any draft pick"
  • "Wins, losses, ties, overtime losses and goals against average apply to goaltenders" - there's no column for ties.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All taken care of. I'd removed ties from the chart a while back as VGK was founded long after their demise, but forgot to remove from that descriptor. The Kip (contribs) 18:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

edit
  • Use "background-color" instead of just "background" for the column headers. If you do not do so, the sorting icon is missing, which makes the page below what we expect for accessibility. You also have an extra exclamation point in the column text, just before "scope", that should be removed.
  • The table needs a title for accessibility reasons
  • It should be called out in some way, even via note, that the source uses "T/O" whereas you don't include ties. I understand the reason why, but I think it's good to call this out in some fashion.
  • Change 2017 NHL Entry Draft to 2017 NHL entry draft in the lead and in the images where it's linked.
  • Ref 10 – Add The Hockey News as the source
  • Ref 6 – Wikilink Las Vegas Review-Journal
  • General ref 1 – Change from publisher = <code>|publisher=The Internet Hockey Database</code> to <code>|website=[[HockeyDB]]</code>, based on the fact the Wiki page is called that
  • You switch back and forth between referring to the team as Vegas or the Golden Knights, pick one and be consistent in the prose.
  • If this is meant to be the entirety of the team's picks, why are the picks from the 2017 NHL expansion draft not included?
  • Add {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} to the top of the article under the short description so that dates in the references remain consistent if more are added and so they're auto formatted.

That's what I've got for now. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh just a note that I’m away from my laptop for the next day or two, but I’ll let you know when I’ve got these taken care of. Thanks for the feedback! The Kip (contribs) 21:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: No worries, I typically don't edit on the weekend anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, I'll go through point by point:
  • 1 is done
  • For 2, I based it off the title from FL List of New York Islanders draft picks.
  • Added a note regarding 3 that Hockey Ref includes ties, but they're not in the chart as Vegas was founded after their abolition.
  • 4-7 are done
  • For 8, I chose to refer to them as the Golden Knights (again going off the Islanders FL)
  • Expansion draft picks aren't included with entry draft picks - this is more a precedence thing, and undoing this (either merging the two or renaming entry draft picks) would have to be a WP:IH-wide project (if not sports wikiprojects-wide - expansion drafts are universally treated as separate from "the" (entry) draft, as seen at Washington Wizards draft history or Jacksonville Jaguars draft history).
  • 10 is done.
The Kip (contribs) 05:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: That's funny you link Jacksonville Jaguars draft history, it's on my to do list and I was heavily considering and leaning towards including the expansion draft picks. While not the same, I did include the extra drafts in Detroit Lions draft history's sublists. Granted there was no expansion draft, so it's a bit of a different situation. Never the less, I'll accept that the expansion draft won't be included, even if I do believe it to be relevant to the subject.
I'm just checking with PresN whether you need exclamation points or not when declaring a scope, but otherwise, I think that's everything I've brought up addressed. I would like to see the second paragraph expanded a bit though.
Any thoughts on a separate goaltenders section, similar to List of Detroit Red Wings draft picks? For what it's worth, I have no issue with the cells having a line through them, I think that makes sense. I also had no issues with the images being beside the table, I think that's a pretty standard thing to do. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I thought so but confirmed it with PresN. Row scopes need to be declared with an exclamation point (! scope="row") to be accessible. | scope="row" is not acceptable for accessibility reasons. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh as for the second paragraph - I copied it from other draft pages. I'm not entirely sure how it could be expanded, as I feel it summarizes the draft/lottery process fairly well. I'm personally not a fan of the separate goaltender section, as in my opinion it takes away from being a comprehensive list of picks. I also agree that the images should be next to the table, but I'm still somewhat concerned regarding the issues raised by Dajasj - that said, if that problem is overstated I'd be happy to move them back.
Additionally, I'm having some issues regarding attempting to convert the table to ! scope="row" - I'm attempting to duplicate the styling found on the Lions page of only the draft year being bolded, but for some reason, no matter what I do the years are both off-center and not bolded. The Kip (contribs) 20:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: I'm on mobile right now but I wanted to give you a quick response about the issue. If you remove plainrowheaders (very first line at the top of the table) it should look like what you're aiming for when you add the exclamation point for the row scopes. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Gotcha, all done now. Let me know if any other changes are needed, or if you think it's good to go! The Kip (contribs) 19:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

edit
  • "Wins, losses, overtime losses and goals against average apply to goaltenders and are used only for players at that position." - why? Why not show winning/losing games for every player?
  • It is very confusing to see only a bunch of dashes for some players. I guess this means that they didn't play for the team at all. It would be good if this was explained somehow. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824:
    • Those statistics (and specifically W/L) are only recorded by the league for goaltenders, similar to how W/L are only recorded for pitchers in baseball.
    • The "Key" section indicates that dashes indicate "does not apply," effectively meaning they never played NHL games - however, that's something of a given, considering the note above the table stating that it shows each player's statistical totals in the NHL.
    The Kip (contribs) 05:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to make the player's name as the header cell of every row. Right now the draft year is set as the header cell, but that's not really unique across all rows. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I'm not really sure if I follow. The Kip (contribs) 19:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope the following tables make it clearer. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current version
Draft Round Player Player stat
2017 1 Cody Glass 0
2017 2 Player Two 1
Suggested version
Draft Round Player Player stat
2017 1 Cody Glass 0
2 Player Two 1
  • @MPGuy2824:: There's no reason they can't use the draft column as the header cells, it's fairly standard and it's what I did in my draft related lists. They're welcome to change it up, as I know a lot of people do in various lists, but it's a personal preference thing from my understanding. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: MOS:DTAB states: Because the row header and column header may be spoken before the data in each cell when navigating in table mode, it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively. One possible solution here is to have the draft year as a level-1 header with rowspans, and the name (or something else unique to the row) as a level-2 header. Possibly, the cells of the "Player" column can be styled to look like the other non-header cells. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 With all due respect, I'm not even sure if what you're asking to be done is possible for someone not overly well-versed in table coding. Especially considering many of the football lists promoted to FL in the recent past (such as the ones Josh has successfully improved), and while I'm biased as the nominator, this feels a tad excessive with respect to the FL criteria. The Kip (contribs) 09:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824, just following up - do you support otherwise? Again, I'm not sure that what you're asking for regarding the tables is possible, nor is it necessary for FL. The Kip (contribs) 19:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajasj

edit
  • The image don't fit next to the table on smaller screens or screens that use Vector 2022 max width by default. So on desktops this creates huge white space, while on mobile it creates a lot to scroll past. I would recommend leaving out additional images.
  • In the first column, the rows can be combined if they are from the same year right? It's confusing me, because I expect different links.
  • Could it be possible to leave out "—" in every cell and clarify that empty cells means this did not apply. I think it would make the entire table less cluttered (especially because four columns are nearly always empty).
  • Maybe it is my lack of knowledge on this topic, but the table suggests there are multiple goaltenders, yet the four right columns are empty for them and the introduction mentions only one? (Please ignore this if this comment was simply ignorant ;)) Dajasj (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj:
    • I've converted it to a gallery at the bottom - my concern with removal entirely is that the list then falls below the expectation for featured content to be adequately illustrated.
    • They could be in theory - Ice hockey and basketball wikiproject precedence indicates they're individually linked though (see the Wizards and Islanders lists linked above). I assume it has something to do with accessibility.
    • Again a precedence thing, though I disagree here - I feel that empty cells make the table look incomplete.
    • All good, haha - Patera's the only goaltender to actually play for Vegas, hence the rest of the drafted goalies' stats being empty. Zhukov and Kooy never signed with the team, while Saville, Vikman, Lindbom, and Whitehead are all still prospects who haven't yet reached the NHL.
    The Kip (contribs) 05:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One option to deal with some of the long line of emdashes, is to replace them all with a colspan saying "Drafted but didn't play for the Knights" for every such player. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the sheer amount of players on the chart that'd apply to, I feel like that wouldn't be visually appealing. The Kip (contribs) 19:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj, just to clarify - do you support? The Kip (contribs) 02:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Dajasj (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

edit
  • Archive all the sources
  • Ref 3 and 4 are dead

-- EN-Jungwon 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon I've done so. While 3 and 4's raw links are dead, they're successfully archived and accessible - I don't see why they can't be used as a result. The Kip (contribs) 02:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was rewieing this version of the page where the url status parameter of ref 3 and 4 were set to live. When I commented that those references were dead I was implying that the url status needed to be changed. I should've made that clear. But it looks like Hey man im josh already fixed that in this edit. Since my comments have been addressed I'll go ahead and support promotion. -- EN-Jungwon 02:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for the support! The Kip (contribs) 03:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): PresN 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, mammal list #40 and the 5th and final subgroup of Eulipotyphlans: the subfamily Soricinae! It's... 150+ more shrews. They look identical to each other and to the ones in the previous shrew lists; turns out the smaller the mammal, the wider variety of species can coexist geographically, so there's as many minor variations on shrew species as there are members of every Carnivora family. They're pretty cute, I think, but not really super visually distinct from each other. If you've never seen one, it's because they're busy: shrews eat at least their own body weight in food every single day, so they're very busy vacuuming up all the bugs hiding under leaves on the forest floors. Unfortunately, this means they don't have a lot of time to pose for pictures, so, as in previous lists, the ones in Central America, southeast Asia, and the non-populated parts of China just don't have free-use pictures. As always, this list follows all the conventions we've built up over the last dozens of FLCs, and should be good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

edit
  • Nothing to quibble and I see the wikilinks on the ecosystems you had mentioned in your prior nomination applied. Happy to support for promotion. Although a very minor observation (which I may be unfamiliar with), in the "Scientific name and subspecies" column, is there a reason why some scientists are in parenthetical while some are not? Pseud 14 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pseud 14: Yep, per binomial nomenclature, you do that when the original namer put the species in a different genus than it's currently included in - so e.g. the southern short-tailed shrew is currently Blarina carolinensis, but (Bachman, 1837) originally had it as Sorex carolinensis, and that's the official way to denote that, apparently. --PresN 00:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation and insight into it. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Most of the dates are in mdy format, except a few that are in ymd format. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spent some time working on this article about a quirky former football competition to bring it up to featured standard and complete the UEFA club competition winners topic. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "The Intercontinental Cup was disbanded" - I think "discontinued" would be a more appropriate word
  • "In its first eight editions, the competition's winner was decided on a points system" - the table shows nine
  • "determine the outcome in case of a tie" => "determine the outcome in the event of a draw"
  • "The most successful confederation is CONMEBOL, teams representing the confederation have won the competition 22 times" => "The most successful confederation is CONMEBOL, teams representing the confederation having won the competition 22 times"
  • Why are there flags by the two Japanese stadiums but not any other stadium?
  • Note o is missing its full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • In tables where you have rowspans for header cells, there the scope should be "rowgroup".
  • I don't understand the sorting within the Score column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, @MPGuy2824: I should have fixed both of those now. NapHit (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Slightly weird to use "two-legged" and "single-leg". Please change it to either "single and double" or "one and two", whichever the sources support more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's common to refer to ties of this nature in football as being played over two-legs, so it would be odd to write double finals or even two match finals. I agree it does sound a bit weird, but changing to something else wouldn't reflect how sources refer to these type of matches. NapHit (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't object to the word leg/legged being used. So my suggestion is to either use "single/double-leg" OR "one/two-leg", but not a mix of the two. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, think I've fixed this now @MPGuy2824:. Should all refer to two-legs. NapHit (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

edit

I did a sweep with IABot, I hope you don't mind. I also added a url for the Vonnard source and changed the publisher to palgrave macmillan per the url. Feel free to revert if you disagree.

Only two comments:

  • The infobox image is under the |logo= parameter; it would benefit from being changed to the |image= parameter and from having a caption.
  • Statements about the playoffs vary slightly:
1. Peñarol won 2–1 in playoff at Estadio Centenario
2. Santos 1–0 in playoff at Estádio do Maracanã
3. Internazionale won playoff 1–0 at Santiago Bernabéu; Racing Club won playoff 1–0 at Estadio Centenario
I would make them all like 1 but add 'the' before playoff. So "Team won x-y in the playoff at Stadium".

Sgubaldo (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Il lupa (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comprehensive list of writers shortlisted for the annual BBC National Short Story Award. It's the first list article that I've made but, as far as I can tell, it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Il lupa (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "(previously known as the National Short Story Award, 2006-2007)" - I think "(known as the National Short Story Award in 2006 and 2007)" would work better
  • "It is an annual short story contest in the United Kingdom which is open to UK residents and nationals" - I would move it to the first sentence i.e. "The BBC National Short Story Award is an annual....." and then move the bit about it being prestigious into the second sentence
  • "the winners receives" - this should be easier "the winner receives" or "the winners receive" but not what you have currently
  • Both notes need a full stop
  • That's all I got - great first nom! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback, I've made all the improvements you suggested Il lupa (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Sorting the results column should put the runner-ups between the winners and the short-listed candidates.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 2001 becomes !scope=row | 2001 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed the results column sorting and added column and row scopes. I'm pretty sure I've done it correctly but please let me know if I'm wrong! Il lupa (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes look good. Another issue: The last column in every table sometimes has multiple references. You can use the {{Ref.}} template for each of the column headers to take care of this. Please ping me here when you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I have updated the headers. Il lupa (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten the lead of the article to a level that I think meets the criteria. Everything else should be good too. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Link the team name on first usage
  • "Only four of the Kraken's draft picks of gone on to play" => "Only four of the Kraken's draft picks have gone on to play"
  • Per MOS:COLOR, you cannot use just colour to highlight something, as readers with visual problems may not be able to identify the colours. You need to also use a symbol.
  • That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • One cell in every row should be the header cell and it should begin with a "!" instead of a "|". You can also use rowspan for the years, since a lot of them are in common. You should change the scope to "rowgroup" if you do this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition to this: replace "caption_text" with the actual text of the caption you want. --PresN 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    Fixed it. XR228 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

edit
  • Since their creation, the Kraken have drafted 28 players, the 2023 NHL entry draft being the third in which they participated. – The juxtaposition from picks to the 2023 being their third draft is choppy and needs rewording.
  • You switch back and forth calling them Seattle and Kraken in the lead, pick one and stick with it.
  • Down case 2021 NHL Entry Draft to 2021 NHL entry draft
  • There's a lot of info that could be helpful that's not included in the second paragraph and I think it needs to be expanded to better explain the draft process a bit. A high level overview obviously, but this isn't as clear as I think it could be.
  • After the end of his rookie 2022–23 season, Beniers won the Calder Memorial Trophy as the League’s best rookie – Remove "end of his rookie" from the first part of the sentence. The second part explains the award clearly enough that this information is redundant.
  • ...managing 24 goals and 33 assists in 80 games. – Probably improved by replacing "managing" with "having accumulated".
  • The Kraken's second overall draft pick in 2021 was the highest they have ever drafted. – Could be reworded to be better I think. Something like, "The highest the Kraken have ever drafted was in 2021, when they had the second overall pick." or "The Kraken have never selected higher than in 2021, when they had the second overall pick."
  • Don't switch between using "second" in the lead and then using "1st-round pick" at the end. Be consistent, at least in prose, with the usage of words.
  • Ref 5 missing publisher date
  • Date format is inconsistent in sources
  • Usage of publishers not consistent in refs (Ref 1 and 2 use "National Hockey League" while ref 3 uses "NHL.com")
  • Inconsistent wikilinking of publishers, please wikilink publishers for consistency
  • Ref 4 needs to be marked as a subscription being required
  • The source uses combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately.
  • Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, the see also section should not be linking to their first draft.

That's what I've got for now, though I think on a re-pass over I'll probably find more. Please ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a few, but this is the feedback I have:
  • Ref 4 – add |subscription=required
  • The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately.
  • Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
  • The images need alt text added for accessibility
  • ...Ryker Evans, Ryan Winterton, and 2022 fourth overall pick Shane Wright. – Remove the part about his pick. It's not specified for others so it's not necessary for Shane Wright.
  • General ref 2 – Add <code>|website=[[Hockey-Reference.com]]</code>, publisher can stay since they're the parent company
  • The table currently has a table title of "caption text"
  • Second image uses "first" and "4th", switch it to "fourth" for consistency.
  • This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NHL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.
  • Use "background-color" instead of just "background" for the column headers. If you do not do so, the sorting icon is missing, which makes the page below what we expect for accessibility. You also have an extra exclamation point in the column text, just before "scope", that should be removed.
  • If this is meant to be THE entirety of the team's picks, why are the picks from the 2021 NHL expansion draft not included?
That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the changes. The 2021 expansion draft was selecting players from 30 of the already existing teams, so it isn't the same as an entry draft. XR228 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XR228: There's a number of points you have failed to address, some of which this is the third time I'm mentioning:
  • Ref 4 – For the third time, add |subscription=required to the reference, as a subscription is required to access the source
  • The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately. Needs to be called out or explained in some way.
  • Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
  • This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NFL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.
Further feedback:
  • General ref 1 – Change from publisher = |publisher=The Internet Hockey Database to |website=HockeyDB, based on the fact the Wiki page is called that
  • Draft picks are draft picks. I don't see a reason not to include other players that were drafted by this team.
  • Add the {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description for consistent date formatting
As mentioned, ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I've made the changes. Also, there is a difference between an ENTRY draft and an EXPANSION draft. The FL List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks does not have any selections from Atlanta's expansion draft. XR228 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XR228: I understand there's a difference between entry and expansion drafts. I'm heavily involved with NFL articles, particularly draft list promotions, and we have had expansion drafts as well. @The Kip: has discussed the issue of the expansion draft with me at his nomination for the Vegas Golden Knights. I don't love the exclusion of it, and I genuinely believe it's relevant, but I'm willing to let it slide and not use that as a reason to oppose promotion of these lists.
  • Prior to the 2005–06 season, the NHL instituted a penalty shootout for regular season games that remained tied after a five-minute overtime period, which prevented ties – Close, but might be a bit too wordy. What about something like "As of the 2005–06 season, the NHL implemented new tiebreaker procedures, making ties no longer possible."?
  • "Entry Drafts" should be lowercased.
  • Row scopes need to be declared with an exclamation point (! scope="row") to be accessible. | scope="row" is not acceptable for accessibility reasons.
I fixed the general reference myself. Again, please ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, @PresN, any other changes that need to be made? XR228 (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen any of the earlier Snooker world rankings articles and wondered how they could make the system even more complicated and unfair, the answers lie within. Ranking points, comparison of performances in the most recent year, merit points, "A" points and frames won are all in the mix. Steve Davis topped the list once again, by a considerable margin. As always, extracts from relevant sources are available on request to reviewers. All improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "He noted that WPBSA chairman Rex Williams was ranked 16th instead of John Parrott who had the same number of ranking points as Williams but more merit points," => "He noted that WPBSA chairman Rex Williams was ranked 16th instead of John Parrott, who had the same number of ranking points as Williams but more merit points,"
  • "in the 1985/1986 season top 16 players were" => "in the 1985/1986 season the top 16 players were"
  • "Williams has been ranked 27th the previous season" => "Williams had been ranked 27th the previous season"
  • "Other Ranking Tournaments" => "Other ranking tournaments"
  • "If player were still equal" -> "If players were still equal" (in three places) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

edit
  • Neal Foulds, ranked in the top 16 for the first time for 1986/1987, moving up to 13th from 23rd place. -- I think it should be a verb here as in moved up to 13th from 23rd place following a supplementary information in between.
  • That's all from me. Great addition to your series. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text.
  • Images are appropriately licensed (AGF on self-published work)
  • Images have succinct captions and are relevant to the article. Suggest italicizing "(pictured in [year])" in the captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Pseud 14. I made the suggested change. Regards, 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a review, unrelated comment

edit

@BennyOnTheLoose:: Just noting that I've renamed and tweaked the nomination based on the recent move discussion for this series. Hopefully you don't mind, and I apologize in advance if I've overstepped. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh all good. I copyedited this one so the body is consistent with the new title format. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time nominating FL, and I hope this meets all the criteria of FL. One reason I am nominating this for the featured list is because it is a complete list of Johnson solids, along with the surface area and volume, as well as the symmetry. As for the background for someone who does not comprehend mathematics, especially in geometry, the Johnson solids were in the list proposed by Norman Johnson, and he conjectured that there were no other solids, after which was proved by Victor Zalgaller. I think I can give three examples for the exhibition:

There are actually 92 of them, but I would not exhibit them a lot here. I hope this could be the next FL of WP:WPM, and it could be the first FL of sister WikiProject, WP:3TOPE. Anyone, including someone interested in it, can review this. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense

edit

Claiming a spot here, since I think it's a great article and I still want to properly go through it like I promised. Remsense 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

edit
  • Prose
    • "It is also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area...." ==> "It also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area..."
      Removed an ungrammatical word. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "attaching prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation, respectively." ==> "attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively."
      I thought a comma would be supposed to be, but oh well, removed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing – This is not a source review, just some things I spotted
    • For "Daniele Barbaro’s Perspective of 1568", the author's first name is 'Cosimo' not 'Cosino'.
      Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cromwell's Polyhedra book is missing an ISBN, which you can find here.
      Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zalgaller's source is missing an ISBN and the publisher looks wrong. I found this page on Springer
      Nice. Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For "Group Theory in Solid State Physics and Photonics: Problem Solving with Mathematica" and "2D and 3D Image Analysis by Moments", the publisher is called 'John Wiley & Sons', not 'John & Sons Wiley'.
      My mistake. Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilink Canadian Journal of Mathematics.
      Wikilinked. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been told you can either wikilink publishers or leave them unlinked as long as you're consistent. You've wikilinked Cambridge University Press but none of the others; it would be good if you could either delink Cambridge University Press or wikilink John Wiley & Sons, Springer, Academic Press, American Mathematical Society and Dover Publications.
      Wikilinked all, just in case. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the authors have their full first name and some only have their initial; I believe this can be done in one way or the other but it has to be consistent.
      @Sgubaldo. Sorry, I do not understand here. Are you saying the author's initial name should be either abbreviated or fully named in all of the sources? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. For example, have all of them either lik "Cromwell, Peter R." or like "Diudea, M. V." Sgubaldo (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, to think about the efficient way, it would be best to abbreviate at all, rather than finding out their first full names. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgubaldo. I think I have complete all of the suggestions above. Let me know if there are any remaining missing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, I'll have a full read-through later. In the meantime, I've added some urls/other missing author links myself. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and made some copyedits. Feel free to revert an edit you're not happy with it.
Here are some more commments:
  • The passage
    These solids may be used to construct another polyhedron with the same properties, a process known as augmentation; attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively. Some others are constructed by diminishment, the removal of those from the component of polyhedra, or by snubification, a construction by cutting loose the edges, lifting the faces and rotate in certain angle, after which adding the equilateral triangles between them.
is a bit confusing to read because I'm not sure what 'those' is referring to. I'm reading it as you attach the prism/antiprism to any of the first six Johnson solids, but it's not very clear.
  • Is defining area and volume necessary? I'm specifically taking about the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width, and the surface area is the overall area of all faces of polyhedra that is measured by summing all of them. A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." I understand you have to consider WP:TECHNICAL but perhaps you could just include how the volume and surface area are calculated for a polyhedron and remove the definitions themselves.
  • Is the sentence "one case that preserves the symmetry by one full rotation and one reflection horizontal plane is   of order 2, or simply denoted as  " also necessary? You already explain the   group and this is just one example
Sgubaldo (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "defining area and volume necessary": This is on purpose to make readers (for non-mathematicians, students, or anyone who is interested in it) recap the meaning of area and volume. If it does not exist, readers may search them on the previous wikilinked. I am aware that one problem here is our articles is somewhat technical, making readers even much more confused. Take an example of Surface area, stating that "a measure of the total area that the surface of the object occupies". This is not only to help readers to understand the definition, but rather to give the meaning of the object specifically. Here, I wrote the surface area of a polyhedron specifically as the total area of all polygona faces. So to put it plain, this is intended to summarize them specifically about the polyhedron's characteristics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was more whether the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width" and "A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." were necessary, but if you think they are per WP:TECHNICAL, then I'm fine with their inclusion. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr Anyways, final comment on this part: "The volume of a polyhedron is determined by involving its base and height (as in pyramids and prisms), slicing it off into pieces after which summing them up...." – I'm slightly unsure as to what 'involving its base and height' means here. Could you clarify? Sgubaldo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is just like saying that volume of a prism and pyramid is the product of height and its base, with an exception that pyramid is one-third of it. The inside bracket is meant to show the merely examples. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr, could you rewrite the sentence a little to clarify that? I think it's still hard to understand in its current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say that volume of a polyhedron can be calculated in different way. Take examples as in the prism and the pyramid. The volume of a prism is the product of base and height  . The volume of a pyramid is one-third of the product of base and height  . From all of these examples, their calculation only involves the base   and height  . Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr. Thank you, I understand now; these will be my final comments then, after which I can support.
  • What do you think about tweaking the relevant part of the sentence mentioned above to something like: "The volume of a polyhedron may be ascertained in different ways: either by decomposing it into smaller pieces, such as pyramids and prisms, calculating the volume of each component, and then computing their sum, or......"
  • When you say "meaning their construction does not involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids", is that intending that it doesn't involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids at the same time or that it involves neither of the two. If it's the former, then it's fine. If it's the latter, I think it should be changed to "meaning their construction does not involve neither Archimedean nor Platonic solids"
Sgubaldo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "tweaking": What? This means something different. My interpretation is that you pointed the polyhedrons such as pyramids and prisms can be defined their volume by decomposing it into smaller pieces.
What I meant about those facts is that every polyhedron's volume is different to finding them. One example that I already explained is involving the produvt of base and height. However, not all the volume of polyhedrons can be done in that way. We can see an example of Triaugmented triangular prism in which constructed from a triangular prism by attaching three equilateral square pyramids onto its square faces. To find its volume, we need to slice it off into a triangular prism and three equilateral square pyramids again. Finding their volume, and then add up the volume again, and the volume of a triaugmanted triangular prism is total of those. But this method is not working for sphenomegacorona, and the alternative way is by using root of polynomial, as described in OEIS. That is what I meant also in the previous copyedit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "elementar": The definition by not involving Platonic and Archimedean solids was copyedited from the previous meaning in several articles of Johnson solids. However, Cromwell and Johnson gives different meaning, so I'm going to copyedited the rest of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re " ": Not expert in symmetry here. As far as I'm concerned, the symmetry   is explicitly stated in the source [1], consisting of identity and mirror plane, and this can be denoted as  . Is there something wrong? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert either. What I was trying to say was that you explain the symmetry group   with the sentence "The symmetry group   of order   preserves the symmetry by rotation around the axis of symmetry and reflection on horizontal plane", but then also go into specific detail about  , which seems to be a specific case of  . My concern was whether this was necessary, since no other examples of a symmetry group are explored in the article. Is it because it needs to be shown that   is denoted as  ? Sgubaldo. It is a mirror symmetry, merely. (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles says it is involution group symmetry, as it is shown in List of spherical symmetry groups,. The notation is in Schoenflies notation. If it's possible, let me ask this in WP:WPM to gain more precise meaning ensurely. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "these solids". It means that the first six Johnson solids can be used to construct more new Johnson solids by attaching the uniform polyhedrons (as it is included in the article), and those constructions are already mentioned above, with some exceptions that snubification does not need them basically. Some of the Johnson solids cannot be constructed without them. I think I will fix this one, but I have to be careful my writing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I've made some minor edits here too and I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Solid name becomes !scope=col | Solid name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    Implemented them all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

edit
Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second and final stop at FLC for a good topic I'm working towards. Still waiting on quite a few GA reviews before I can get there (plus two articles I still need to do some expansion on), so I thought I'd get this FLC going in the meantime. This is the episodes page for a popular UK television series. It has set quite a few records in terms of viewership so there were enough sources to write a pretty engaging lead so I spent a few hours tonight expanding it. I look forward and thank you all in advance for any reviews! :) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "directed towards BBC Two[3] which" - I would recommend a comma after Two
  • "in over ten years[12] leading" - also a comma after years
  • "The series has been nominated for several awards[29] also gaining" - comma after awards
  • "Additionally, Craig Parkinson,[45] Jessica Raine,[46] Jason Watkins,[47] and Anna Maxwell Martin[48] also star" - I don't think you need to say both "additionally" and "also". Is there a way to reword this?
  • "special mini-episode written by the Dawson Brothers" - our article says the group is called Dawson Bros.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You strike again as my first reviewer!
    I fixed the first four comments.
    For the fifth: I considered listing them as Bros. based on our article, but the source I cited the credit to lists them as the Brothers (specifically "The virtual pantomime has been written by the Dawson Brothers, the comedy writers behind this year’s hilarious Line Of Duty Sport Relief Special [...]") The mini-episode didn't actually have any credits, which is what we list ours from most of the time. That said, I don't have any objection whatsoever to changing it if you still think it should be changed, I just wanted to mention my thought process first?
    Thanks again, TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Series overview table: The "Originally aired" cell should have scope as colgroup, not col.
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. All the tables are missing captions.
  • * Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. A few of the header cells in the "Viewing figures" table are missing scopes.
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added captions to the series overview and episode tables.
    • As for all the scopes, if I'm not mistaken, this would be a far larger issue that I need to raise at the template talk pages? It's not something I can fix at this page specifically. Template:Series overview for example is used on over 8,000 pages, at least 55 of these are featured lists. Some of which, just passed FLC this year. I'd be willing to raise the issue on the template talk pages given that I'm not a template editor (and because it uses LUA, so I wouldn't be able to fix it myself if I were), and I'm not sure how soon it can be addressed, but I just wanted to mention that it is not something that is directly within the scope of my control on this list.
    TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've posted messages on Template talk:Television ratings graph and Template talk:Series overview. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824: Just curious if you add any further comments on this, or were even potentially willing to support it given that it's expanded outside the scope of this article and the discussion on the template's talk page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the issue in the {{Television ratings graph}} template, and have made an edit request for the {{Series overview}} template since it is protected. I think we can wait a few days for this to happen. In any case, this FLC still needs a source review before it will be considered for promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With some precedence of alternative lists at FLC (see Outline of lichens), I am offering up a list of lists to FLC: Lists of Green Bay Packers players. This index list provides an overview of all the various player-related lists for the Green Bay Packers. This includes 16 different lists (noting that the All-Time Roster is split into 4 additional standalone lists due to length), as well as other pertinent information (the team's current roster, photos on Commons and relevant external links). Per FLC criteria, this list provides a full lead summarizing the relevant material and has 3 freely licensed images. As always, happy to discuss and resolve any comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

@Gonzo fan2007 Excuse me if I am wrong, but why does the end of the lead say The following lists provide an overview of notable groupings of Green Bay Packers players. Is it supposed to be like that? Sorry, I’m dumb so tell me if I’m wrong. 48JCL • (📲/📝) 01:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL I'm not sure there is a right or wrong. I just thought it was a nice way to end the lead to clarify to the reader that the following are lists, not individual entries like a typical list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for the clarification. 48JCL • (📲/📝) 01:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My last 11 nominations have been based on NFL first-round draft picks, but given that that series is now all promoted or nominated, it's time to move on to my next project! I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and as part of what I hope to be my first featured topic (this would be the subject of the topic, with 3 sub lists eventually). This list is based on Green Bay Packers draft history, which was promoted to featured list status on March 23, 2024. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007 (Source review: Passed)

edit
  • When you do complete the individual picks lists, are you planning to link them from the table, similar to Green Bay Packers draft history?
  • the franchise was relocated to Detroit and renamed to the Detroit Lions in, I think you could drop the second "Detroit" and just say "renamed to the Lions".
  • Billy Sims and 1950 NFL draft have duplicate links in the lead
  • Source review:
    • Reliable sources on what is being cited
    • Consistent formatting
    • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for
    • Ref 10 and 44 are the same, should be combined.
  • Support on sources and overall! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the review @Gonzo fan2007!
    • If you view the table with source editor you'll see that I've actually got all the links in the table ready and commented out for when I move the individual pick lists to main space.
    • I think you could drop the second "Detroit" and just say "renamed to the Lions". – I'm hesitant to do this just for the reason that someone might mislead the statement to mean they were renamed to the "Portsmouth Lions".
    • Refs 10 and 44 have been combined.
    Aside from the comment about naming, I believe everything has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

edit
  • With the eigth pick -- eighth pick
  • In addition to the 1984 supplemental draft, since 1977 the NFL has hosted an annual supplemental draft -- think it should work better if changed to: In addition to the 1984 supplemental draft, the NFL has hosted an annual supplemental draft since 1977...
  • The Lions have selected first overall in a draft four times, selecting Frank Sinkwich -- suggest switching variation on selected then selecting to avoid being repetitive
  • That's all from me. Great work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pseud 14:
    • Fixed typo
    • Made suggested change
    • The Lions have selected first overall in a draft four times, selecting... -> The Lions have drafted first overall four times, selecting... – Does that work you think?
    I very much appreciate your feedback, thank you for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "In 1936, the Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players and have participated in every NFL draft since." => "The Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players in 1936 and have participated in every NFL draft since."
  • "except for the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s" - does this mean that that league also had a draft? If so then "except for that of the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s"
  • "special drafts have occurred. This included" => "special drafts have occurred. These included"
  • " the number of rounds and the number of picks has fluctuated significantly" => " the number of rounds and the number of picks have fluctuated significantly"
  • "The Lions participated in in the most recent draft in 2024" - duplicate "in"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1936, the Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players and have participated in every NFL draft since." -> "The Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players in 1936 and have participated in every NFL draft since." – Done, that does work better imo.
    • "except for the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s" - does this mean that that league also had a draft? If so then "except for that of the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s" – It did, I've made the change.
    • "special drafts have occurred. This included" -> "special drafts have occurred. These included" – Done.
    • " the number of rounds and the number of picks has fluctuated significantly" -> " the number of rounds and the number of picks have fluctuated significantly" – Done.
    • "The Lions participated in in the most recent draft in 2024" - duplicate "in" – D'oh, done.
    Thanks so much for the review and feedback @ChrisTheDude! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee V

edit
  • I like that the lede goes into depths straight away about what the team is, and it's history.
  • Do we need to use the word "franchise". It's quite an American term for a team.Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it is a rather American term, but after giving it some thought I do feel it is probably the best terminology for referring to the organization. Absolutely open to suggestions, but the only other terms that sprung to mind were team, club, and organization, none of which felt more appropriate than franchise in this context. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to require that you know what a draft is. The lede just states they were in the first one. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Do you mean draft as a general concept, or to better explain the purpose of the NFL drafts? For reference, I've typically used the second and third paragraphs at List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks (with tweaks where appropriate) to explain the concept. This phrasing was taken and modified from the promoted Green Bay Packers draft history (which obviously doesn't mean it's not possibly to improve upon), which is why it differs. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in general really. From a UK audience, a draft is a thing that sends people to war, or you buy in pints. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think and hope I've addressed that by adding "When a team selects a player, the team receives exclusive rights to sign that player to a contract and no other team in the league may sign them, with limited exceptions.: Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • competing leagues.[22][23][24][25][26 - could we try WP:BUNDLING. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the table could do with a small intro to explain what the rounds and original draft order are rather than using notes. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: What do you think of a rework to something like User:Hey man im josh/sandbox? Also pinging @Gonzo fan2007. I would obviously clean this up more appropriately, but I do think, if more information is included, the lead becomes too long. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly, I am biased, but I think the current format is better. I don't think there is anything wrong with using notes. My thought to address the comment above would be to maybe add to the NFL draft was the only selection process to retain the rights to sign college football players collegiate draft for players of American football. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am biased towards notes. I'm struggling with striking the right balance between information at a glance vs expecting readers to go to other articles for more in depth info. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: I apologize for the delay. I've bundled the refs and I added a bit to the section, with references, that I believe adequately explains things. I believe all of your feedback has been addressed. The remaining question has to do with whether franchise is the best word or whether there's a better one. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No pressure, just sending a gentle reminder ping about this to check whether everything's been addressed @Lee Vilenski. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EN-Jungwon
  • Ref 16 replace |last1=Rosdon with |last1=Risdon
  • Ref 25 replace |first1=Matthew with |first1=Michael

-- EN-Jungwon 07:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: I have made the changes. Thank you for catching these. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 13:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fourth list of accolades nomination. This time, we have another Nolan great, the 2010 film Inception.

Note: My Joker nomination has received four supports, so I am adding a second one. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "with particular recognition for its cinematography, score, visual and sound effects, editing as well as Nolan's screenplay and direction" => "with particular recognition for its cinematography, score, visual and sound effects, and editing as well as Nolan's screenplay and direction"
  • The King's Speech should be in italics the first time it's used and not linked the second time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Done. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • In the table, the scope for header cells which cover only one row should be "row", not "rowgroup".
  • The rotten tomatoes ref is missing its archive link.
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Done. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is a nearly perfect list. Chompy Ace 00:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third Inkigayo list that I am nominating to become a featured list. The format of this list is similar to the previous two lists. Appreciate any feedback. -- EN-Jungwon 16:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
MPGuy2824
  • "since July, 2016" remove the comma.
  • Does Korea use the mdy system of writing dates?
  • Their singles "Knock Knock", "Signal" and "Likey" ranked number one for three weeks each and achieved a triple crowns in 2017, while "Heart Shaker" went on to achieve a triple crown the following year.
  • You can remove the row stating that '"—" denotes an episode did not air that week.' since this info appears in the 'key' table. Alternatively, you can make sure that it always sorts at the bottom.
  • 'Prior to her official debut, Minseo took her first award win for "Yes".' This is begging for more explanation.
  • That's all I got. Please ping me here after you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 all done. Majority of Korea related articles use mdy format. From what I can tell this seems to be the accepted format. For Minseo, there is a detailed explanation at Minseo_(singer)#2015–2017:_Pre-debut:_Superstar_K_7,_"Monthly_Yoon_Jong-shin" (last paragraph). It is also mentioned in the source. -- EN-Jungwon 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find anything specific in the MOS for dates in Korea-related articles. The date formatting seems consistent throughout the article, so ok.
  • Minseo's pre-debut debut: If you can manage to put the explanation in a few words and incorporate it in that the sentence, it would be great. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Korea uses YMD (e.g. 2024년 6월 6일 -> 2024 June 6). There is no established preference in the English language in Korea for MDY or DMY, although you'll often see MDY because Korea leans closer to the American side of the Anglosphere.
    My understanding is that we follow MOS:DATERET for articles without strong MOS:DATETIES (e.g. if the article is about UK–Korea ties then maybe DMY is more appropriate?). Whichever style the primary contributer to the article uses, we follow. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 I couldn't think of a good way to put an explanation there so I removed the mention of Minseo's pre-debut. I don't think it's that relevant to this list so it shouldn't become a big issue. Thanks for the review and sorry for taking so long to reply. -- EN-Jungwon 18:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824, in the Music Bank 2023 FLC you suggested that the date is the unique cell of every row and should be made into the header cell, instead of the episode number. I was thinking about it and wondered if something like this would be acceptable to make the column sort correctly. -- EN-Jungwon 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO somebody looking at the wikicode would be able to understand why those particular numbers are used. So, yes, your linked diff would be acceptable. Visually, (and for screen readers) the emdashes being the header cell in rows still seems weird to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

edit
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Since all the sources are in Korean, which I can't read, I'll have to wait for a source review, but I'm expecting to support at that point. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it offers a well-written and well-sourced overview over the most successful Romanian music released. It is the first list of its kind here on Wikipedia, but I believe it meets the required criteria. I am happy for any comment. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment - alt text is needed for the images in the article. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Staraction: Done. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Unusual and very interesting topic for an article. Here are my comments:

  • "Over the years, several songs and albums released by" - first three words are a bit vague. Maybe "Since the 1970s".....?
  • "The first documented instance are the works of nai player Gheorghe Zamfir." - I doubt that there any instances which are not documented, so I would change this to "The first Romanian artist to chart in such markets was the nai player Gheorghe Zamfir."
  • "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu started charting multiple albums" => "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu charted multiple albums"
  • "and in a few other European countries" => "and in European countries"
  • "both of which stand as two of the " => "which stand as two of the "
  • ""Musica" (2011) by group Fly Project " => ""Musica" (2011) by the group Fly Project "
  • "as well as "I Need Your Love" " => "and "I Need Your Love" "
  • Notes: "This article lists all music releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)." => "This article lists all charting releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)."
  • "has annualy published" => "has annually published"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Many thanks for your comments! I solved them. Let me know if you support the nomination. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second congressional delegations nomination from me, the first being United States congressional delegations from Connecticut! Other featured lists in this vein include Utah, Indiana, and Hawaii. Lots of what I've written is of the same style as the Connecticut article. Thanks for taking a look, and I appreciate any and all feedback y'all give! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying members of the House" - obviously each state elects varying members, they don't all elect the same ones. I think what you mean is "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying numbers of members of the House"
  • "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation is" => "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation, is"
  • "of its two senators, one Democrat and one independent, and its nine representatives: 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats." - odd that you write all the numbers as words and then suddenly switch to digits at the end......
  • "Of those, Martha McSally and Kyrsten Sinema have been the first and only women" - I think "the only women" would suffice, as if they are the only ones than by definition they were also the first
  • "such that each election, around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election" => "such that at each election around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election"
  • "Following 1940 census" => "Following the 1940 census"
  • "Following 1960 census" => "Following the 1960 census" (and so on for all the others)
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Thanks for your feedback! I've done everything except for the second bullet point. Wouldn't "or longest serving member" be a parenthetical clause; thus removing it leaves "The current dean of the Arizona delegation is" vs. "The current dean of the Arizona delegation, is"? I feel like the first option makes more grammatical sense. Let me know if I'm missing something or if there's more. Thanks again for reviewing! Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, ignore that one, I don't know what I was thinking there. One thing I didn't pick up on before, though: "Seven women have served Arizona in the House, including Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally, who are the only women who have served Arizona in the Senate" - doesn't that sentence contradict itself? Seven women have served in the House, including two who served in the Senate? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a little bit weird to phrase and I don't think it came out properly. Sinema and McSally both served in the House prior to serving in the Senate, and they are the only women to have ever served in the Senate. Is there a better way to phrase that? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "Seven women have served Arizona in the House, including Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally, who also served the state in the Senate, the only women to do so"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds good, thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


MPGuy2824
  • "The first woman to serve Arizona in the Senate was Isabella Greenway." - House of Representatives, not Senate.
  • the current senator table is missing colscopes. Also its first header needs to be made into a table caption
  • In the full senate table, you don't need to bold the Congress since that is a header cell in every row. This should be checked for the other tables as well.
  • There is also no need of setting the height. The height anyway expands to more than 2em when there is less space. This probably holds true for other tables as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Hi, thanks for your feedback! All should be fixed. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose and table accessibility. I fixed a few minor accessibility issues in some of the tables. You can keep those in mind when you prep your next FL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 @Staraction Sorry, I reverted these edits because the table wasn't displaying terms right. In my experience the 2ems are needed because otherwise mid-term changes don't show correctly, though I don't know if there's a better way to fix them. I'll put the other changes back once I have more time though. Emk9 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next up: US conifers. Licensing information for the images (there are a lot of them) will be up shortly on the list talk page. (Part of your reviewing work is already done here, since some rows are almost identical to the ones at List of inventoried conifers in Canada ... if you sort on the 3rd column, these rows will be displayed first.) Once again, there's some basic information here about some trees that are common in North America (and many are common in temperate zones around the world). Feedback is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

edit
  • Support on prose. Found nothing that require further improvement. Another great list! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thx much! - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reviewed the additions and changes to the list that Dank has notified me about. No changes in my declaration above. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Pinus palustris: "A forest" OR "Forests" instead of "Forest". Also change the "have" to "has", if the singular is more appropriate. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support promotion. Couldn't find any other issues with the prose. A few of the ref are missing their archive links, though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: I've relied on IABot for this when I've been asked before ... I did the run and checked "Add archives to all non-dead references", and it claimed the run was successful ... but it found no references that it wanted to add archive links to. I'm not seeing any evidence here that the bot is having problems. Not sure what to do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(FWIW, it's very unlikely that https://plants.usda.gov is going to disappear without a trace anytime soon.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing support until I can go through the merged list again. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can rethink the "Key" section since the lists are now merged.
  • It seems odd that Abies concolor "Grows best, ... in the mid-latitudes of California's Sierra Nevada.", but its distribution doesn't include California.
  • Some of the "Uses" end with a full-stop, some don't. I think they should all be removed.
  • Wikilink "Mississippi River states".
Going with "except for ... states bordering the river".
  • "one specimen was found to be 1650 years old." It would be nice to get an online citation for this fact.
  • "sometimes living 500 years or more" add an online citation for this one as well.
  • "principle provider of timber" to "principal provider of timber"
  • Sometimes the "Uses:" sentence is a different paragraph, sometimes not. Please make it consistent.
  • Wikilink the first usage of "subalpine".
In a sortable table, either all need to be linked or none (although as a practical matter, that means it's best to find an excuse to link it once somewhere above all the rows of the table). There were two, I linked both.
  • That's all I got. Please ping me here when you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Thanks, all done, but you might want to wait until I add the eastern-only species before you take another look. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me here when you finish merging. I wrongly assumed you were done with that. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Okay, that's done. If it helps: the rows that were added were copied from the current version of User:Dank/List of forest-inventory conifers east of the Mississippi. (Another way to identify them is: they're the ones with no distribution data on western states.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Oops I saved the ping wrong. Repinging in case that didn't work. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it easier to go through a diff:
@MPGuy2824: Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion of the merged list on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on List of forest-inventory conifers east of the Mississippi apply here as well. With the substantial overlap, the unusual limitation of the distribution within each list, and the fact that a division based on the Mississippi River does not appear to be in the sources, I would oppose these lists being separate FLs. List of conifers of the United States would make more sense as a title. Reywas92Talk 17:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Okay, that's done. For a discussion of the page title, see User talk:PresN#List of forest-inventory conifers in the United States. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one on my goal to (a long, long time down the line) get a list of the Heritage New Zealand historic places for each of the 67 territorial authorities of New Zealand. Poor Gore is one of the smallest districts by population, and it shows; there are only 6 entries in the district, while neighboring Clutha and Southland have 65 and 44 respectively. Nevertheless, this wouldn't make sense as part of anything else, so out of the interests of completeness, I bring it here! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby cmt and image review by Queen of Hearts

edit

Is there any particular reason for a SFN to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act? It isn't citing multiple sections and all the other cites are long. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did it that way on my other, but you're right that it's not strictly necessary. I'll change it to a long cite. - G

And I'll come back to try my best at an img review:

  • All images should probably have {{FoP-New Zealand}}
  • File:Cremoata (30746745724).jpg - From a fine-looking Flickr account, passed FlickreviewR, and NZ has freedom of panorama for 3D works; FoP-New Zealand and it'll be good
  • File:MA I836111 TePapa Presbyterian-Church-Gore.jpg - wouldn't {{PD-New Zealand}} be better? also add {{PD-US-expired}}
  • File:Fleming's Creamoata Mill complex Gore New Zealand.jpg - claimed own work by a well-established WPedian; FoP-New Zealand and it'll be good
  • Alts look fine

Queen of Heartstalk 18:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

edit

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Ref 1 – Add |via=Internet Archive
  • Change the column header from "Citation" to {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • Gore Presbyterian Church row – Partway through the paragraph the text starts on a new line. Not noticable until I try to sort the columns, but it is an issue.
  • Move the first image in the list below the use dmy dates template
  • I recognize the source may capitalize "(Former)", but it's not a proper name and should be downcased to "former".
  • You should run IABot to add some archive links
  • Ref 5 – Should the title be "Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014" instead of "Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act"? The source looks like it includes "2014" in the title.

Overall, I found no issues with the reliability or formatting of references. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Note that I tweaked by feedback for ref 1 and an additional piece of feedback that was based on the bibliography that you converted to a reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Okay, I think i fixed everything! IABot hasn't ran yet, but I told it to. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Lead image could be made larger
  • "Former passanger station of the Main South Line" - second word is spelt wrong
  • That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Okay! Fixed :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some paragraphs to the lead of this article, which I think live up to good standards. All of the playoff information in the table itself is adequately sourced. This article should meet the Featured List criteria. Thank you. XR228 (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, @MPGuy2824, @PresN, are there any other suggestions for this article? This conversation seems kind of dead. XR228 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them for all but the 'Regular season' and 'Postseason' column headers. Since those two cover multiple columns, the column scopes should be added with a !scope=colgroup, e.g. !colspan="9"|[[Season structure of the NHL|Regular season]] becomes !scope=colgroup colspan="9"|[[Season structure of the NHL|Regular season]].
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |[[1924–25 NHL season|1924–25]] becomes !scope=row |[[1924–25 NHL season|1924–25]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "with 2023–24 season marking" => "with the 2023–24 season marking"
  • "The Bruins would fare decently" => "The Bruins fared decently"
  • "They would make up for the drought" => "They made up for the drought"
  • " The Bruins would miss the playoffs in 1997" => " The Bruins missed the playoffs in 1997"
  • "finishing with the worst record of the season with 61 points" - source?
  • "ending a 29-year playoff appearance streak, the longest in NHL history" - source?
  • "Throughout the next nine seasons, the Bruins would face a rough patch" => "Throughout the next nine seasons, the Bruins faced a rough patch"
  • "The Bruins would start another playoff streak in 2008" => "The Bruins started another playoff streak in 2008"
  • "In 2011, the Bruins would defeat the Vancouver Canucks" => "In 2011, the Bruins defeated the Vancouver Canucks"
  • "but they would lose in the second round of the playoffs to the Canadiens" => "but they lost in the second round of the playoffs to the Canadiens"
  • "The next season, the Bruins' playoff streak would end at seven seasons" => "The next season, the Bruins' playoff streak ended at seven seasons"
  • "after failing to qualify by two points" => "after they failed to qualify by two points"
  • Also, what's the source for that "two points" bit?
  • "They would miss the playoffs for a second season in 2016, but qualify in 2017" => "They missed the playoffs for a second season in 2016, but qualified in 2017"
  • "However, Bruins would come out on top" => "However, the Bruins came out on top "
  • "They would lose in the second round of the playoffs to the Tampa Bay Lightning" => "They lost in the second round of the playoffs to the Tampa Bay Lightning"
  • "The 2022–23 season, would see the Bruins make history" => "The 2022–23 season, saw the Bruins make history"
  • Also, why did this make history?
  • "However, they would get upset in the first round of the playoffs" => "However, they got upset in the first round of the playoffs"
  • "after blowing a 3–1 series lead" - source?
  • "In the 2024 playoffs, they would lose to the Panthers again" => "In the 2024 playoffs, they lost to the Panthers again"
  • "From the 1926–27 season through the 1937–38 season, Boston played in the American Division." - don't think this needs to be a note as it's quite clear from the table. Maybe replace the text of this note with something like "with effect from the 1926-27 season, the NHL split into [however many] divisions because of [reasons]"
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Four of the unnecessary "would"s are still present..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed it. XR228 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • The terms in the "Key of terms and abbreviations" table aren't necessary. You can just use the {{Abbrev}} template in the header cell. e.g. W, L, T. For some of the others a footnote would do.
  • Please fix "{{sronly|caption_text}}".
  • The "↑" symbol isn't necessary IMO since it is always mentioned next to text stating that they "won the Stanley Cup finals vs Opponent X".
  • In the result column, there is no need to mention multiple wins of the same season. Just the best win can be included. i.e. SF is better than QF, and Final is better than SF.
  • Making the table sortable would involve some work, but it would be useful imo.
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel it is necessary to keep a full list of opponents faced in a season; all the other NHL season featured lists do it. Same goes for many of the other suggested changes. XR228 (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to point 4 - virtually all season tablea across all sports have playoff progression, rather than just whatever the best result was. The Kip (contribs) 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the appropriate changes. XR228 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you've added sorting to the table, I would expect the results column to show in the following order when sorted in descending order: all the Stanley Cup final wins at the top, followed by Stanley cup final losses, followed by losses at the semi-final stage, and so on. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I have made the changes (it is almost 1:00 a.m. and I am ready to die). XR228 (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support promotion. If interest and time permit (after you get up), please take a look at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the Support. I think your nom looks good. XR228 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did an overhaul of the article a few days ago and I think it's ready for the review process. The Ukrainian language wiki version of the list already has selected list status (which is their equivalent of FL) so don't see why this can't be promoted too. Expect there'll be a few things that can be added and some minor improvements but I'm confident based on the state of the article that I'll be able to get this promoted. Also hoping to use this article as a general framework for additional "list of cities in oblast" articles after the review. Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd put my thoughts about this in case it helps future reviewers. While the article as-is I think covers the subject well, I've been considering adding in a column for the establishment years of the cities (which both the Ukrainian and Russian wiki articles have). That said, the main List of cities in Ukraine just sticks with admin. subdivision and population and I also don't want to overload the table with too much info so not sure if this would be a good addition. Also was thinking of adding into the lead a few sentences about which are the oldest cities, that many were created as part of industrialization and are tied to the mining industry, and maybe also some comments about the current status of some of the cities (e.g. the fact that Bakhmut, Mariupol, Avdiivka, etc. have been mostly destroyed during the full-scale invasion) but not sure if it makes sense here since these already fall in the Donetsk Oblast article's scope. Feel free to let me know y'all's thoughts on these and hopefully they help with ideas but happy to make whatever improvements I can to the article! Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • No article should start with "this is a list". Take a look at some other FLCs and come up with a more engaging opening sentence.
Before nominating, I tried searching to see if there's other similar list of cities articles that're FL and found this: List of United States cities by population. Not the exam same type of article but it also starts off with "this is a list." If it helps though, I could take out that sentence and reword the next sentence to say: There are currently 52 populated places in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, that have been officially granted city status...by the Verkhovna Rada, the country's parliament.
That list was promoted over 15 years ago and standards have changed massively since then. Your alternative suggestion sounds good for an opening -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it based on the above. Thanks again ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast is" => "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast was" (2022 was two years ago)
Fixed
  • Other verbs in that sentence should also be in past tense
Also fixed
Thanks ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Drive by comments
  • Just like the first comment above saying no article should start with "this is a list", no article should have a reference to the list outside of the list itself. The sentence "The below list shows the English name, Ukrainian name, raion, 2001 census recorded population, 2022 population estimate, and population percent change for each city." does not seem to serve a purpose.
Fixed
  • "currently" not needed in first sentence.
Fixed
  • What do the numbers in the first column mean? Why is this column there?
Fixed? when overhauling this article, I tried to base it on conceptually similar articles, primarily List of cities in Ukraine and others like List of cities in Australia by population and List of cities in Kansas. From my understanding and the way I've always used it, the column is a type of number ranking which allows readers to sort tables and have number rankings for each row, which can be quiet useful for finding out things like what's the 10th largest city in 2001/2022, how many cities saw 10%+ pop. change, etc. In case it helps, I added one of the template's title options "#" on the top of the column with some extra table code. That said, I saw other list articles such as List of cities in Canada and List of cities in the United Kingdom don't use it so I don't mind taking it out. The template also allows for the title "No." but I think "#" works just the same. Let me know what you think about it though.
  • It's not common to have a link to a portal in the see also, would suggest removing both portals from the see also section.
Removed
  • Image alts could be more descriptive (for accessibility reasons)
Fixed? Tried to make them more informative but let me know if I should reword/shorten/expand them.
  • as could image captions (for example, "the largest city in Donetsk")
same as above
  • table completely unsourced, need refs for population columns in header.
Fixed 2022 column; for the 2001 census results, I'm currently searching for a Ukrainian gov. website to add to that column though haven't had luck with finding a gov. source that lists all of them. I'll make sure to send a follow-up update when I find it!
  • No need for external links subheading, just external links is fine
Fixed
Normally estimates would not be encyclopedic, but given the extenuating circumstances and lack of any recent census, I suppose this makes sense until the next census? Other than these points above, the article looks quite good! Many of them are vital before being promoted.

Mattximus (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the Next Ukrainian census doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon and with the current war, I don't think the statistics would be as useful anyways since they've been changing a lot frequently. Let me know if there's anything else I can do and many thanks Mattximus for all the comments!!! :D Dan the Animator 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, just two outstanding issues. First, it is critical to have a citation for the 2001 census populations, it cannot pass without this. Second, I do like your change to alphabetize the list (that makes it easier to update when the next census actually comes out), but I think the table should not include the number column as it doesn't serve the purpose beyond a count. Since it is a list of cities, the cities column should be the same colour as the headings. Mattximus (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still working on the 2001 census citation but for the number column, I removed it. About the cities column shading, I haven't seen any table in a "List of cities" article that has it like that. I've looked through at least a dozen varied similar articles (also highly recommend checking out this to see how other articles do it) and they all use the same general shading (the only column that gets fully shaded in any of the tables I've seen is the number column (which I removed from this article per above) and not the cities column. Also don't think it would conceptually make sense to have that shading since both the English and Ukrainian name columns are both "cities columns" imo (and they both are exactly the same in functionality/formatting). Let me know though if I'm missing something and thanks again with the comments! :) Dan the Animator 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a requirement for the nomination, I just checked all featured lists of cities have it. I clicked on one at random: Cantons of Costa Rica which was one I put up for promotion. I know this is a requirement because I was asked to do it many times. Mattximus (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus can you post a link to other, more recent past FLs of cities (as many as you know of)? I don't think the article for Cantons of Costa Rica is a good comparison to this article since the Ukrainian equivalent of that article would be List of hromadas of Ukraine (or Raions of Ukraine depending how you look at it). Would help to see maybe some of the other FLs tho, especially if they're more recent (I noticed your FLN for Costa Rica is from 2016 but was wondering if they'd changed it since then). Thanks!!! Dan the Animator 17:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this has been a policy for at least 8 years (it's in the MOS somewhere), common format for all featured lists in general. You can check out User:Mattximus and click on any of the 45 featured lists of cities/municipalities (the ones with a star beside them), there is also a more comprehensive list when you click on featured lists and scroll to find the cities lists. I clicked randomly to a whole bunch, and can't find any that didn't fit this standard, so I think it is a necessary change. Mattximus (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose just for now based on missing citation for the entire 2001 census column (the link failed verification as it has similar but not identical numbers as the table here). And the format for the table seems to be incorrect. Specifically ,city name should be same colour as headings, and tables needs captions (|+ <caption_text>, or |+ <caption_text> if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context.). Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Completely fixed the table/formatting issues. For the citation, would either of these sources (source A, source B) be acceptable? It's alright if not but given the complete 2001 census data increasingly seems like its not available online (and thus would probably be a book citation) and the Ukrainian language wiki page (which has recognized article status) uses the former source (the mashke.org one) in their version of the list, I wanted to ask. Many thanks again with everything and let me know if there's any other issues I can fix (and if the formatting for the table is alright now). Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table is completely fixed, good work, but the one last citation problem remains. Is there anyone who can help find where these numbers come from? The links you provided give different numbers, and don't seem to come from any official document. But surely this document exists. Maybe another user has an idea? 19:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, Ymblanter, Mupper-san, Shwabb1, Yulia Romero, and Микола Василечко: pinging in case y'all have any advice about this (wasn't sure who to ping so sorry in advance for the bother!!!) Dan the Animator 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly well-versed in the discussion, so do forgive if this isn't what is being talked about, but given the fact that mashke.org has an unclear source and (at least according to Firefox for me) has an unsafe connection, I would personally use the numbers included alongside the currently-used sources, as they're official documentation. As citypopulation.de cites mashke.org, I also wouldn't include it.
Perhaps, it would be possible to e-mail Mr. Bespyatov (the owner of mashke.org, judging by the copyright at the bottom) and ask him for a source? Although I'm not quite sure.
Mupper-san (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mupper-san! :) I agree with the concerns for the two sources though the only official Ukrainian government source I could find lists the 2001 census results for only 28 of the 50+ cities in the oblast. Also, although my guess is he got the numbers from the physical records in Kyiv, I think contacting Mr. Bespyatov is a great idea! I'll send him an email in a moment and reply here if he follows up. Dan the Animator 04:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the 2001 census website. Go to Publications, download the file kl_2001.rar under "Кількість та територіальне розміщення населення України" (The number and territorial distribution of the population of Ukraine). Open the file 5.xls, you'll see the breakdown of population by raion/city/urban-type settlement. The data for Donetsk Oblast starts on row 552. Be aware that the names are before the decommunization laws (e.g., Artemivsk instead of Bakhmut). Shwabb1 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shwabb1!!!!! :D It worked perfectly and I accessed all the stats (only one of the numbers was off on the article thankfully tho). @Mattximus: I think that about finishes everything? Take a look and let me know if there's anything else to do. Dan the Animator 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall looks good, I only see two small mistakes: Krasnoarmiysk should be Krasnoarmiisk using official romanization (per WP:UAPLACE), and in the first citation "urban-type settlements" are mistranslated as "towns". Shwabb1 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now I will strike the oppose. I think there should be a heading "notes" just like references below and the note can go there instead of floating kind of below the table. I think the format of the reference needs a bit of work (I believe you need filetype for something like a rar?), but nothing here to oppose over. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mattximus and Shwabb1!!!! :) I think I fixed basically all the above suggestions! For the new reference's formatting tho, I wasn't sure exactly how much needed changing but I added the |format= parameter in with a link to RAR which hopefully helps (feel free to let me know if there's anything else I can do tho). Dan the Animator 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! [[City|City name]] becomes !scope=col | [[City|City name]]. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |[[Amvrosiivka]] becomes !scope=row |[[Amvrosiivka]], on its own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN: Done! The table should be completely fixed now. Let me know if there's any other formatting/other issues that I can fix. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mattximus and PresN: after going through the article meticulously (with sourcing, formatting, and everything in between), completely addressing all the comments here and applying the feedback from my other related FLN for cities in Luhansk Oblast to this article as well, and considering that this list was nominated a month ago and hasn't received any new comments since June 11, I think it should be finally ready to pass. If there are any remaining issues with this article, please let me know but otherwise, I think its time to take this article out of the queue and promote it! Also pinging FL director for their insight @Giants2008:. Apologies all for the bother and many thanks for all the support! :) Dan the Animator 00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the box at the top of WP:FLC: "The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus." This nomination currently has only a single support, which is not typically considered a consensus to promote. Unlike FAC, we don't typically archive nominations that don't get a lot of attention but instead let them stay a little longer, so don't worry, but please do be patient. --PresN 03:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still getting an error on the citation for the 2001 census, is it just me? One more small change:
Fixed? I think I accessed it using the link about a week ago but you're right! Don't know why both the archived and normal link stopped working. I switched it with the permanent, webpage link and added instructions on the ref of how to access the numbers. Let me know if its good now.
  • The image captions seem to be incorrect, the are not the largest or smallest cities, as no land area was given. They are the most populous, least populous, have the second largest population, wording like that is more correct.
Fixed
  • That's it!

Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mattximus! :) Let me know if that fixes everything! Dan the Animator 16:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FLC. I am now nominating as my previous solo nomination has closed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "Peretti departed the series in the fourth episode of sixth season" => "Peretti departed the series in the fourth episode of the sixth season" Done
  • "During the course of the seconds season" => "During the course of the second season" Done
  • "which aired on September 27" => "which began airing on September 27" (the whole season didn't air on that one day) Done
  • "The fourth season aired on September 20" - same again Done
  • "The eighth and finale season" => "The eighth and final season" Done
  • "Season one, was initially given" - no reason for that comma there Done
  • Something seems to have wonky with the season one column headings Done
  • "Season three aired on September 27, 2015" - as per above Done
  • "The fourth season aired on September 20, 2016" - same again Done
  • "The season was the final to air Fox" => "The season was the final to air on Fox" Done
  • "The eight and finale season aired two episodes a week" => "The eighth and final season aired two episodes a week" Done
  • Hitchcock's forename is spelt wrong in the webisodes section Done
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

edit
  • Refs. 29-31 are all tagged as permanent dead links. Done
  • Refs. 62, 66, 99-106 and 123-131 have TV by the Numbers as publisher instead of website. Done
  • 'Tv series finale' ==> 'TV Series Finale' on Ref. 173
  • "On May 13 the Fox canceled the series; the following day, NBC picked up the series" ==> "On May 13, Fox cancelled the series; it was picked up by NBC the following day" Done
  • Ref. 34 is missing a retrieval date Done
  • Also on Ref. 34, the date is marked June 9, 2020 but checking the ref shows June 4. Done
  • "The season was the final to air on Fox." ==> "This season was the final one to air on Fox." Done
  • Ref. 147 is missing an archive link and the current url is dead. Done
  • Not strictly essential, but there's several sources whose current url is live that don't have an archive link: Refs. 1-6, 8-34, 36, 173 and 175-179.

Sgubaldo (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgubaldo: I have addressed the above with the exception of the last one which I'm having trouble with. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: the production codes are sourced to here, but I can't see them anywhere in the source? Sgubaldo (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo: Their there in the first row. The episode number = prod code. For instance me time is sixth episode produced fourth to air so its production code is 106. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three more:
I trust these will be done, so I'm happy to Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): PresN 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal list #39, and we have a short breather in the order Eulipotyphla: shrews part 2! Soricidae (shrews) may be ~400 species in three subfamilies, but of course it's not split evenly, so our middle list here only has 25 little shrews. These guys are the cleverly-named African shrews, because... they're all in Africa. They're again all pretty similar, and mostly don't have pictures, because they're tiny little things that burrow around under leaves in the forest eating bugs all day. In any case, this follows all the conventions we've built up over the last dozens of FLCs, and should be good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

edit

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 14 sources match what they are being cited for
  • Assumed good faith on sources that I did not have access to

Usually I'm too intimidated by the size of these species lists to give it a go, but this one is comparatively short. Found no issues so I support promotion. Great work as always PresN! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

edit
  • May have made the same comment on another FLC you nominated earlier. Regarding the ecosystems shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands, perhaps consider linking for those who are unfamiliar. Other than that, nothing preventing me from supporting another solid work from you. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did; now done (and done for the next couple of lists to be nominated). --PresN 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the progress made during archive1 makes me feel that this should be featured-level with a few minor changes. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add a "(pictured in <year>)" for Danny Wuerffel since it seems to be from much later in his life. Check the same for the other images as well.
  • You can remove the bolding from the image captions, since the information is already present in the table.
  • Support promotion as the above are minor issues, and the first nomination was closed just before I indicated my support there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (UTACS) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well-organized list about a noteworthy topic. Vestrian24Bio (UTACS) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "In the 2 seasons played, 7 players" => "In the two seasons played, seven players"
  • " In the meantime Delhi Capitals's Meg Lanning" - there's no reason for the words "In the meantime" there. Also, there should not be an s after the apostrophe on Capitals'
  • "while, Meg Lanning and" - no reason for that comma
  • Also, per MOS:SURNAME, only Lanning's surname needs to be used on the second mention of her
  • "Despite having won no titles, Harmanpreet Kaur leads" - again, only surname is needed here
  • "The following list is arranged by most number of wins in descending order" - no it isn't
  • "The ones with the † are currently captaining their sides in the WPL 2024." - already covered by the key above, you don't need to say it again
  • The notes should go above the see alsos -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done
    Thanks, I've fixed them except, "The list is initially organised by the number of matches as a captain and if the numbers are tied, the list is sorted by last name." - it is. Vestrian24Bio (UTACS) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Player becomes !scope=col | Player. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ![[Meg Lanning]]{{Dagger}} becomes !scope=row | [[Meg Lanning]]{{Dagger}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN Just one question: Is the !scope= needed for header cells set in the middle of the rows. example: ! 70.58 Vestrian24Bio (UTACS) 16:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There should only be one header cell per row. Header cells should not be used to highlight cells, but only to serve as the "head"/primary cell of each row. --PresN 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

edit
  • Sorting the player column should sort by last name
  • The column needs to be renamed as "Name" or "Captain"
  • The team name columnshould be just after or just before the captains name column.
  • The key table needs to have the same accessibility fixes done that were applied for the captains' table (rowscope, colscope, caption, etc)
  • Some of the keys are unnecessary (e.g. Won, Lost, Tied, Win%). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 All done, except the third one: The "Name" column is the row header and should be kept fist, and their nationality comes after. How could I place the Team name next to the player name. also, what caption would be appropriate for the key table. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • what caption would be appropriate for the key table Looking at one of the nominations before yours, just the word "Key" is enough.
    • The name column still doesn't sort correctly by last name. Sorting it in descending order should show Sciver-Brunt at the top.
    • The row header does not have to be the first column, just the most important cell in that row wrt to the list that it is in.
    • PresN's last comment is also not yet done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Table is sorted based on number of matches; I'll adjust the columns now. I am still working on PresN'a comment-will be done tonight. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. If interest and time permit, please take a look at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fifth FL nom and the third in the constituency series. This time it is a larger list with 230 constituencies. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "As of 2001, it comprises 230 members" - 2001 was more than 20 years ago, so the present tense is not appropriate. Surely there is more up-to-date info available?
  • "The 2011 census of India stated that the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes constitute a significant portion of the population of the state" => "The 2011 census of India stated that the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes constituted a significant portion of the population of the state" (past tense, as 2011 was more than 10 years ago). I presume more up-to-date data has not been published?
  • "After the independence of India in 1947, the then province of the Central Provinces and Berar, along with a number of princely states merged with the Indian Union, and became a new state" => "After the independence of India in 1947, the then province of the Central Provinces and Berar, along with a number of princely states, merged with the Indian Union and became a new state"
  • "The number of constituencies of the legislative assembly of this state was 184. 127 constituencies were single-member, and 48 constituencies were double-member" => "The number of constituencies of the legislative assembly of this state was 184, of which 127 were single-member and 48 were double-member"
  • "Madhya Pradesh was reorganized on 1 November 1956, following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. It was created by merging the old Madhya Pradesh state, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal states." => "Madhya Pradesh was reorganized on 1 November 1956, following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, merging the old Madhya Pradesh state, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal states."
  • I notice that you use both the US spelling "recognized" and the UK spelling "recognised". I don't know which is the correct spelling in Indian English but whichever it is should be used in all cases.
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switched from "As of 2001," to "From 2001," which is what I meant. I can clarify/reword that statement further, if required.
    • I assume you mean reorganized, not recognized. I've switched to the spelling used in the name of the act: "Reorganisation", which is the UK one. There is still one instance of "Reorganization", but that is from the title of a paper by two US authors.
    • The 2021 census of India hasn't yet taken place. 2011 is the latest completed census.
    • Fixed the rest. Thanks for the review, ChrisTheDude. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Tone 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia has nine World Heritage sites and 15 sites on the tentative lists. Several ancient cities and Roman remains, as well as desert locations. Standard style. The list for Morocco is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a hard-and-fast rule, but I've noticed that nominators wait for 2 (or more) supports on an older nomination before starting a new one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "because of construction" to "because of the construction" - in the lead and the table
  • " resulted in reduction of vegetation and drop in bird numbers" to " resulted in a reduction of vegetation and a drop in bird numbers" - in the lead and the table
  • "between the 12th to the 16th centuries" to "between the 12th and 16th centuries"
  • wikilink "Islamic world"
  • " series of wars until the" to " series of wars, until the"
  • wikilink necropolis
  • The sentences about minor boundary changes don't seem important to the list.
  • "listed endangered" to "listed as endangered".
  • "By 2006, the situation has improved" to "By 2006, the situation had improved"
  • "As opposed to several Phoenician cities, such as Carthage, Byblos, or Tyre," to "Unlike other Phoenician cities, such as Carthage, Byblos, or Tyre,"
  • "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE and were discovered in 1952, provide an important insight into the Punic urban planning." to "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE were rediscovered in 1952, and provide an important insight into Punic urban planning."
  • "under the Aghlabids as a part of" to "under the Aghlabids, as a part of"
  • "The medina has been well preserved, with several monuments, including the Ribat, which is both a fortification and a religious building, the Great Mosque (pictured), the kasbah, the Bou Ftata Mosque, and fortifications." - too long and complicated. Please split.
  • "important Libyan–Punic settlement which" to "important Libyan–Punic settlement, which"
  • "lives here while" to "lives here, while".
  • "have been reintroduced" to "were reintroduced".
  • "mammals and reptiles and it" to "mammals and reptiles, and it".
  • I'll continue later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing...
  • "As opposed to several sections of Roman Limes" to "Unlike several sections of Roman Limes".
  • "Sfax was the gateway and the port of Ifriqiya to the Levant." to "Sfax was the port of the Ifriqiya region, and its gateway to the Levant".
  • "Geological formation" to "The geological formation" in two entries.
  • "extinction event supporting" to "extinction event, supporting".
  • A couple of the refs are missing archive links.
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks! I am trying to list the boundary modifications, either major (which get extra explanation) or minor, because this is still relevant - it is a list of WHS after all. And it explains why some numbers have bis or ter attached - I've had questions on that before :) Tone 08:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "By 2006 the situation has improved" => "By 2006 the situation had improved"
  • "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE were discovered in 1952" => "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE, were discovered in 1952"
  • "The island of Djerba has a semi dry climate" => "The island of Djerba has a semi-dry climate"
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed! Two of these were already mentioned above and I just took care of them :) Tone 09:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You still have "By 2006 the situation has improved" in the lead...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, fixed now :) Tone 14:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): IntGrah (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for featured list because...

  • expanded the lead to describe the role
  • described the Master's lodge building
  • highlighted significant developments made by masters of the college
  • summarised the notability of each entry on the list
  • added related images with alt text

IntGrah (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Might be worth mentioning at the start that Trinity is part of the University of Cambridge
  • "In 1546, Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII, from merging the colleges of Michaelhouse and King's Hall" => "In 1546, Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII, merging the colleges of Michaelhouse and King's Hall"
  • " then Warden of King's hall" - shouldn't hall have a capital H, like in the previous sentence?
  • "The Façade of the building" - facade isn't a proper noun so it doesn't need a capital
  • "Arthur Blomfield expanded the west wing of lodge" => "Arthur Blomfield expanded the west wing of the lodge"
  • Great Court is linked twice in the lead
  • (Aside) was the second master known informally as Bill Bill? ;-)
  • "Vice-Chancellor (1548)" - probably worth making it explicit that he (and others who held this role) was VC of Cambridge, not of some other institution
  • That's what I got. Great work! In fact it's inspired me to get out of my comfort zone of music and football and work on a similar article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done (UoC)
    • Done (Merging the colleges)
    • Done (King's Hall)
    • Done (façade)
    • Done (the lodge)
    • Done (Great Court)
    • Not done (Bill Bill)—Very funny
    • Done (Vice-Chancellor) Wrote "Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge" for each entry. Also did the same for St John's College, Cambridge and Jesus College, Cambridge, which have Oxford colleges of the same name.
    IntGrah (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • John Redman, Robert Beaumont, and Thomas Comber are all disambiguation pages
  • You are missing column and row scopes. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice
  • A number of these names are unnecessarily preceded by a title, while others who do have titles that match what's included don't show them. Try to match the target page's name instead, minus disambiguators of course.

Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for spotting; it was a mistake made when switching from Wikilinks to Sortname templates.
Done Row scopes are attached to the names
Done Names now match article titles.
IntGrah (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |{{Sortname|John|Redman|dab=Trinity College}} becomes !scope=row |{{Sortname|John|Redman|dab=Trinity College}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "appointmented" to "appointed" OR rewrite the sentence to "The role is an official appointment by the monarch, at the recommendation of the college, ..."
  • Some stats about the shortest and longest tenure would be nice in the lead.
  • I'll reiterate PresN's point about having a primary cell for each row. I'd recommend the name cell.
  • According to [2] William Bill stopped being master of St. John's in 1551, so you can remove the "?" after that year. In the same cell, remove the full stop at the end since this isn't a complete sentence.
  • The empty ref column for the second William Bill stint looks odd. You can re-cite the earlier ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (appointed) I think the version "The role is an official appointment by the monarch..." doesn't allow for the fact that it is only ceremonial nowadays.
  • Partially done I added a bit about Richard Bentley, since his long tenure is significant. (He was charged twice by the fellows, but held the role. The first sentencer died, and the second sentence was meant to be executed by the vice-master, whom he was a friend of.) I didn't think it was interesting enough to talk about the shortest term of office though.
  • I already have | scope="row" |{{Sortname|First|Last}} on each table row, is that enough, or is there a another way to mark these as primary?
  • Done (Bill Bill)
  • Done (Empty ref)
IntGrah (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of | scope="row" | it should be ! scope="row" | -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I didn't see this in other featured lists, and I think putting the picture first is better in this case. I made a test edit for now, but I am under the impression that | scope=... is sufficient for screenreader software. Please correct me if I'm wrong. IntGrah (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be a !. The reason is that, for wikicode, ! means a header cell, and | means a regular cell. Scope tags only work on header cells (since they're identifying the header cell for the row). Note, though, that the header cell, oddly, doesn't actually need to be the first cell in the row, so if you want the picture column to be the first one then that's fine. I personally don't like the look, but it's not invalid. --PresN 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the highlighted effect on the header cell looks weird when it is the second column. Is the current state fine then? (With the name as the header column) IntGrah (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I think it is fine now with the name as the first column (+ header). Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

My first time crossing the floor from FAC to FLC, so here goes:

  • later becoming President of the Royal Society (1970–1975) (Hodgkin). Suggest cutting becoming; we don't have it or similar in any other context, and it could be used many times in this table.
  • President of the Royal Society (1950–1955), president of the Royal Society of Medicine (Adrian): why the inconsistent caps?
  • Suggest spelling out "Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge" as "Cambridge University" (or "of the University"): as written, it sounds like an appointment in city government.
  • Physician (Haematologist) (Davies): decap haematologist as a job, not a title.
  • Note 2: I don't see "fionaholland" (claimed author) mentioned on the page. Would advise not giving a username as an author anyway: is there anything linking it to someone presumably called Fiona Holland?
  • Dashes in the "Furniture History" reference are massive: should be endashes per MOS:DASH.
  • Stephen Brewer, Donald Olson (2006) (note 13): name order is at odds with other citations.
  • Pace the Wikisource editors, looking at the source page, there is definitely a space in "Beaumont, Robert (d.1567)} after the d..
  • Note 27 should be put into the same style as the other Wikisource links, and hyphen replaced with an endash.
  • Note 36: endash needed.
  • Note 43: endash needed.
  • Advise linking Alan Hodgkin, Anthony Howard (NB target) and Andrew Huxley in references.
  • Notes 54 and 55 need endashes where they have hyphens.
  • Note 64 is shouting at me.
  • Note 56 is a book, which we have generally given in title case, but the title is given in sentence case.
  • Ditto 44, which also needs an endash.
  • Some websites are cited inconsistently: compare notes 66 and 68, both to the Royal Society.
  • Note 5 needs a correct publisher (which university press?), a volume and perhaps an edition number. Could also link to Chisholm.
  • Does Beaumont have an article in the ODNB? If so, why cite the old DNB by preference?
  • The office of the master could be held until the age of seventy, although this could be extended to seventy-five, by decree of the fellowship.: this is phrased in the past tense, but we never say that it has been repealed, or what the current rule is.
  • The office of the master could be held until the age of seventy, although this could be extended to seventy-five, by decree of the fellowship. There have been 40 appointments to the position: MOS:NUM advises consistency on words versus figures here.
  • the second sentence was refused to be carried out by the vice-master, Richard Walker, whom he was a friend of: this is pretty tough going in the passive voice: it would be clearer in the active, I think.
  • the title is referred to as the master: it's the holder that is referred to as the master.
  • Although sentenced twice, the first sentencer died before the process began: I'm not sure which process is meant here, or why this would allow him to get off the hook.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I went through each of your points and didn't disagree with any of them:
  • "fionaholland" appears in a <meta name="author" content="fionaholland"/> tag in the HTML. I think it's safe to say that Fiona Holland is the author, so I spelt out her name properly.
  • Replaced DNB and ODNB web citations with with ODNB templates
  • I summarised the Bentley feud by dropping the details of the trials – that can be read on the main article.
IntGrah (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC), Rusted AutoParts[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have sourced the contents of the page. This would be part of a FT around Capaldi. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "His first acting role was in a 1974 play titled An Inspector Calls" - that implies that the play was written or first staged in 1974, which isn't correct. I would suggest "His first acting role was in a 1974 performance of the play An Inspector Calls" Done
  • "Living Apart Together" should be in italics, also it would be good to say if it was a TV show or a film as "onscreen appearance" is vague Done
  • "He portrayed the twelfth incarnation of the Doctor in Doctor Who (2013–2017) and Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It (2005–2012)" - I would say it would make more sense to put these in chronological order Done
  • "voice acting including, Rabbit" - no reason for that comma Done
  • "Chrisopher Robin (2018)" - this is spelt incorrectly, also it should be in italics Done
  • "He preformed as Professor Marcus in The Ladykillers." - "performed" is spelt wrong, also title should be in italics, also what was this? Another radio play? Done
  • In the tables, roles should sort based on surname where the character had one Done
  • Any title starting with "the" should sort based on the next word Done
  • "Denotes works that have not yet been released"

- there don't seem to be any so just lose this Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Done
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1982 becomes !scope=row | 1982 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Done
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. Done

--PresN 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete as per the given criteria in the article, is well sourced and, IMO, clears the requirements for FLC. To my surprise, the topic of Jewish MLB players is well documented but there was no Wikipedia article on it. So I tried to capture the importance of baseball in Jewish American history and then used a criteria which is strictly for players who identified as Jewish during ("during" being the key word) their MLB careers. I tried to find as many reliable sources as I could and highlighted the star players of their times. I also took inspiration and instruction from similar MLB lists which are featured lists. I hope I did it justice. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • I only have time to look at the lead at the moment, but this is what I got on that:
  • No list should start with "the following is a list". Look at other FLCs and find a way to write a more engaging opening.
  • "players who have at least one Jewish parent" => "players who have or had at least one Jewish parent"
  • Don't have bullet points in the lead, convert this into prose
  • "The criteria for this list has" - "criteria" is a plural word so it should be "have"
  • Per MOS:NOBOLD, bold should not be used to identify entries meeting certain criteria. Use a symbol like {{doubledagger}} instead
  • "an virtual museum" => "a virtual museum"
  • "with two players, Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax being considered" => "with two players, Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax, being considered"
  • More later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, thank you. Will be adding your suggestions ASAP. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I've rewritten the lede with your suggestions. Please give feedback whenever you can. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

edit
  • "with Lip Pike being the first one ever" => "with Lip Pike being the first"
  • "20th-century" doesn't need a hyphen
  • "Jewish players who made it to the Major Leagues often changed their name" => "Jewish players who made it to the Major Leagues often changed their names"
  • "at the rampant in the country and the league" => "at the time rampant in the country and the league"
  • "and the alleged involvement Jewish crime boss" => "and the alleged involvement of Jewish crime boss"
  • "Greenberg played in Detroit which was home to Father Coughlin" => "Greenberg played in Detroit, which was home to Father Coughlin"
  • "an antisemitic Catholic priest who used his radio program to broadcast antisemitic commentary and Henry Ford who spread antisemitism through his newspaper" - don't think you need to say "antisemitic" three times in such quick succession. I think you can get away with losing the first one.
  • "He faced antisemitism from opposing benches and fans" - yet another one there. Maybe change this one to "abuse"
  • "The most famous of those would be Sandy Koufax" => "The most famous of those was Sandy Koufax"
  • "While Greenberg and Koufax were the main subjects of the film, the movie also discusses" - these two verbs should be in the same tense
  • In the table header, "Major League Team(s)" shouldn't have a capital T on the last word as it isn't a proper noun
  • I don't think the teams column needs to be sortable, as it will only ever sort on the first team listed
  • Almost all of the image captions in the gallery contain facts which aren't cited anywhere else in the article, so they will need citing here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, getting right on it. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And good catch with the "antisemitic priest who spread antisemitism" - I didn't realize! Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, I got the facts from citations next to each players' names. Its why I didn't add any to the captions. I thought it unnecessary. The rest of the changes you suggested I have done though. ETA: and, of course, the articles of each player list the facts in further detail as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For 100% watertight referencing, I would duplicate whichever ref contains the fact in the image caption -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, I've done so and also added a few more references. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, just a reminder that I added the references to the pictures too. Is there anything else that needs to be added or changed? Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |{{sort name|Cal|Abrams}} becomes !scope=row |{{sort name|Cal|Abrams}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN, I've edited the tables as you have said. No questions but please check if I did it correctly. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, looks good. --PresN 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "existance" to "existence".
  • "late 19th-century and" to "late 19th-century, and".
  • "This includes players who converted during or before their careers or players who have or had at least one Jewish parent and identified as Jewish by virtue of their parentage." to "This includes players who converted during or before their careers, and players who have or had at least one Jewish parent, and identified as Jewish by virtue of their parentage." Also I'm unsure if the sentence should start with "This" or "These".
  • "rampant antisemitism and remain" to "rampant antisemitism, and remain"
  • "It also talks about Jewish immigration" to "talked", since that is the tense used in the previous sentence.
  • I think you can stop sorting of the notes columns. You should definitely make the Refs columns unsortable.
  • The image captions in the gallery aren't full sentences and so don't need full-stops.
  • See if you replace "winningest" with something else.
  • Run IABot on the article.
  • That's all I got for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824, done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because a lot of time was spent by several editors to bring this article in line with Wikipedia standards, including properly formatting the tables so that they meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS, so that tables display the most up-to-date information with proper sourcing, and so that the formatting matches the formatting used on other quality figure skating articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit
  • At just two sentences, the lead is much shorter than is expected for a FL. It could do with bulking out with a very brief overview of the history of the event and some key points about the people and nations with most medals. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the lead per your suggestion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too have a drive-by comment. You're missing row and columns scopes in a number of tables, which are crucial for accessibility. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was sure I had properly formatted all of the tables. I will of course double-check all of them this afternoon and make any appropriate corrections. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey man im josh, are you referring to the medals by country tables? If so, that’s a template and I wouldn’t know how to change its parameters. The only thing I could do is render it as a table, which I, of course, can do if necessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On review, yes, it looks like it's the medals by country tables. I'm actually seeing the same thing with all of medal tables under Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games. Is there an exception or are the medal tables formatted in a way that's already accessible @PresN? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming we're talking about the {{Medals table}} under e.g. Total medal count by nation, it's fine- the're no visual indication, but the colscopes and rowscopes (using the Nation column cells) are set by the template, I verified in the html. --PresN 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good to know, I'll make a mental note of that. Thanks PresN! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PresN, can you verify that the tables in this article meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS? I believe we have caught everything, but if there is anything that we've missed, please let me know. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're fine. --PresN 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "Since 1903, only men can attend the event" => "Since 1903, only men can compete in the event" (saying that "only men can attend" would imply that women aren't even allowed in the audience)
  • "He won ten gold medals in a row; however, this feat was not achieved at back-to-back events, as he didn't compete at the 1906 World Championships in Munich, Germany" - none of this is sourced
  • Also "didn't" should be written in full as "did not"
  • "The record for most back-to-back titles is held by Austrian Karl Schäfer with seven gold medals." - not sourced
  • Image caption: "Hayes Alan Jenkins (left) and his brother David (right) won together seven gold medals and four bronze medals for the United States in men's singles." => "Hayes Alan Jenkins (left) and his brother David (right) won a combined seven gold medals and four bronze medals for the United States in men's singles."
  • "which reflects on the men's singles medal table" => "which is included in the men's singles medal table"
  • Image caption: "Dick Button won the most gold medals in men's singles at the World Championships in the post-war era. He won all five gold medals at back-to-back events." - last sentence is not sourced
  • "Sonja Henie from Norway holds the record in women's singles for total medals won (with eleven) and the most gold medals won (with ten), which is also the longest winning streak at back-to-back events in this discipline" - last bit is not sourced
  • "Irina Rodnina and Alexander Zaitsev from the Soviet Union hold the record for the most gold medals won in pair skating and the longest winning streak at back-to-back events (with six)" - last bit is not sourced
  • "while the record for most the most bronze medals is held by Shae-Lynn Bourne and Victor Kraatz from Canada (with four)" - "most the most"?
  • Image caption: "Sonja Henie and Karl Schäfer have together won a total of seventeen gold medals at the World Championships." => "Sonja Henie and Karl Schäfer won a total of seventeen gold medals at the World Championships."
  • I would suggest a footnote to explain why "Figure Skating Federation of Russia", which isn't a nation, appears in some of the "by nation" tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! All of these issues have been addressed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): B3251 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like New Brunswick. I found this nice little list full of eight cities in need of major work, so I've completely rewritten the introduction, made a full revamp to the list and made any necessary updates. Feedback appreciated. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "New Brunswick saw a reduction from 104 municipalities to 77" - New Brunswick isn't alive so can't see anything, so suggest "The number of municipalities in New Brunswick was reduced from 104 to 77"
  • "Municipalities in New Brunswick, of which cities, as well as towns and villages are referred to as, are included" - rather mangled wording here. Would be better as "Cities, towns and villages in New Brunswick are referred to as municipalities and all are included"
  • "in Local governments in the province" - no reason for capital L, mid-sentence
  • "has wards in their municipal governments" => "has wards in its municipal governments"
  • "has a "Hybrid" council type," - don't think the H needs to be a capital (also in the note)
  • "As of 2021, the largest city by population in New Brunswick is Moncton" => As of 2021, the largest city by population in New Brunswick was Moncton" (2021 was three years ago so present tense is not appropriate)
  • "and the smallest is Campbellton" - as above
  • "Additionally, Saint John is the first incorporated city in future New Brunswick and Canada overall" => "Additionally, Saint John was the first incorporated city in the future New Brunswick and Canada overall"
  • That's what I got. Nice work on expanding the article. I have been to New Brunswick but I don't recall if I liked it as it was over 40 years ago :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and   Done. B3251 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Second one still needs doing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Missed that one, whoops.   Done B3251 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At 8 entries, this seems a little short to be a featured list, but more importantly, it's also unclear why it exists at all given List of municipalities in New Brunswick (FL) exists. It's the first 8 rows of that table, with the council type/size added (and different incorporation dates, for some reason). How is this not just a content fork? --PresN 20:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question to ask, though I am not the one who created the article so I'm unsure if I could answer it. All that I've pretty much done is do as much as I possibly could to expand onto the article so it stands better as a standalone list, though both articles (list for cities & list for municipalities) were created/promoted as FLC through the same editor. Would it be worth pinging them to ask? Furthermore, would it be beneficial to include former cities to provide leeway for more content to be included into the article? B3251 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hwy43: Pinging article creator for further opinion. B3251(talk) 21:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While no nomination is the same, here is an example of another successful FLC with eight entries. In Canada, we have numerous topics for populated places. {{Canada topic|List of communities in}} is inclusive of both incorporated and unincorporated communities. {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}} is for those communities that are incorporated only. That topic contains 13 FLs – one for each province and territory. {{Canada topic|List of cities in}}, {{Canada topic|List of towns in}}, {{Canada topic|List of villages in}}, etc., are subsets or child lists of their parents within {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}}.

In the past, there have been discussions on these. There are contradictions between WP:NOTPAPER and WP:CFORK. The best way to address CFORK is to make sure this list article has sufficient additional detail that expands upon the content at List of municipalities in New Brunswick specific to cities in New Brunswick. To do so, I have suggested additional information on former cities and other communities that are eligible for city status. See List of cities in Alberta as compared to List of municipalities in Alberta. The former/child list has more detail with respect to administration of the cities compared to the latter/parent list. It also has the two additional sets of info I just mentioned.

I know that New Brunswick has at least one former city – Portland, New Brunswick. Riverview, New Brunswick, Quispamsis, and Rothesay, New Brunswick all appear to be eligible for city status.

@B3251: can you explain why the incorporation dates in this article differ than those in the parent municipalities list? I have a theory why but don't want to assume. Hwy43 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hwy43:, thanks for the response. I looked for a specific incorporation date for each city, when they were incorporated as a city, if that’s what you were wondering is different. I sought each specific date that each municipality was declared city status, so there may be a difference there in comparison to its incorporation as a municipality.
Pinging @PresN: for thoughts on the above comment. B3251(talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very well done list, but isn't this just a fork of List of municipalities in New Brunswick? Mattximus (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Mattximus, please refer to my reply to PresN above regarding this. I don't think I could give a clear answer on this as I'm not the creator of the list, I just did as much as I could to improve/expand onto it and make it more standalone-specific for cities rather than being what information was already provided in List of municipalities in New Brunswick. This list article was created by the same editor who co-nominated the municipalities list with you, so I proposed pinging them here to hear from them. If you would like to possibly give your opinion, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)