Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2021

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Macau Grand Prix winners

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This list is about the 55 winners of the 67 editions of the Macau Grand Prix, an annual motor race held in the streets of Macau in the month of November. Many famous names in motor racing like Michael Schumacher, Ralf Schumacher, David Coulthard and Ayrton Senna have won this prestigious race. Should the list pass, it will be the first featured list related to junior-level motorsports on Wikipedia. I look forward to all comments. MWright96 (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "a eight-lap qualifying race" => "an eight-lap qualifying race"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• "A total of eight drivers Jan Bussell...." - think there should be a colon or a comma or something in there
  • Reworded sentence MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• "MacDonald holds the records for the longest period of time between race wins along with his maiden victory and last–seven years between the 1965 race and the 1972 edition" - apologies, but I can't follow this bit at all
  • Have changed the structure of the sentence MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Moreno photo caption needs a full stop
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Same with Senna photo
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have made changes to the list based on your queries MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead has duplicate links, e.g. Arsenio Laurel and 2020 Macau Grand Prix.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• ""the 1962 race and the 1963 edition" I would conflate, to "the 1962 and 1963 editions" (or races).
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Similar for "the 1965 race and the 1972 event."
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Is "most wins for a team" relevant given that so many different regulations have been followed throughout the lifetime of the event?
  • Uncertain about this one MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Perhaps as long as you are saying which rules for which "record" holders, that wouldn't be so bad. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Added extra prose MWright96 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• ""of the 67 editions of the event, there have been 55 race winners" to prevent quick repeat of "of" go for " there have been 55 race winners in the 67 editions of the event,"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "was local driver Eduardo de Carvalho at the 1954 event," which rules?
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "first win in the 2020 race." rules?
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "and the motorcycling event" what's that? first I've seen of it in this article.
  • The Macau motorcycle Grand Prix MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Is this notable? Is there a link for it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Added wikilink MWright96 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Sortable table means link all linked articles every time.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Chassis – Engine" is header but then all entries are separated by an unspaced hyphen, not a spaced en-dash.
  • Changed title MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• MOS:FLAG non-compliance with those unexplained flags in the "Entrant" column.
  • Removed flags MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Does "entrant" mean team?
  • Yes MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Bowman Racing is piped to different articles (although one is a redirect, but better to fix them for consistency).
  • Fixed MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Speedsport Magazine" if it's a magazine, should be in italics.
  • It's a motorsport statistics and results database with "magazine" in its name MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Have made changes according to the queries raised above and have replied to all of them MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [2]

Formatting

• Notes section is always before the bibliography. Generally the bibliography is after references, but that isn't so pertinent (I've seen it both ways)
  • Moved MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Santos" seems to be missing from the author's name in ref 3
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• I suggest a translated title for ref 3, like they one in ref 14
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Surely CNN should the |work= so its italicized in ref 7?
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• motor.es seems like the actual work name, should probably be under |work= as well
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• I assume Speedsport Magazine should be italicized as well—Auto Bild, another newspaper, already is
  • Speedsport Magazine is a motorsport database not an actual printed publication or news site MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• I do wonder if VW Press UK should be spelled out, but it seems fine.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• Honestly, Crash (and Crash Media Group) don't seem to have much of a reputation—they don't even have a Wikipedia page. The fact that the article itself says "Anonymous (not verified)" is a bit worrying—I would recommend switching it out with an alternative source
  • Crash Media Group formally were the publishers of the Autocourse Annuals in the mid- to late-2000s. Nevertheless, have removed MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Good from what I can tell. Aza24 (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aza24: Have made changes where applicable and have replied to all the above queries MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for you're thoroughness and quick responses. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments –

• Minor point, but the bit in the caption about Michael Schumacher being a seven-time Formula One champion could probably use a cite since that isn't verified elsewhere in the article.
• Ref 1 needs the plural pp. instead of p. for the page cite; changing the page= parameter to pages= will fix this for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Have addressed each of the two points raised above MWright96 (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Support – My couple of small concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Su

Closing; promoted. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [3].

---

List of international cricket centuries at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium

Nominator(s): A.A Prinon (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I had put a lot effort to create this article. I tried to deliver a very good article with reliable sources and significant coverage. I tried to meet the WP:GNG of this article. I gave full lists of centuries serially with reliable sources.A.A Prinon (talk)

Support: Because In my opinion, this article is made following the guidelines and no objectable differences from the other pages existing of it's kind. Kirubar (talk) 13:12, 07 June 2021

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "It is named after A. K. Fazlul Huq, the first Prime Minister of Bengal, who was accorded the title Sher-e-Bangla ("The Tiger of Bengal")." - source? Remove the space between the full stop and the ref in "home of both the men's and women's national teams. [1]" "Women's One Day International and Twenty20 International cricket has also" => "Women's One Day International and Twenty20 International cricket have also" No reason to bold the word century "The first batsman to score a century in test at Mirpur" => "The first batsman to score a century in Test cricket at Mirpur" "Gautam Gambhir was the first batsman to score a century in ODI on this ground" => "Gautam Gambhir was the first batsman to score a century in ODI cricket on this ground" "Among the Bangladeshis, Mohammad Ashraful was the first batsman to reach the landmark score of 101 off 193 balls" - this makes it sound like the landmark was 101 specifically, rather than a century. I would reword completely to "Mohammad Ashraful was the first Bangladeshi batsman to score a century at the ground, scoring 101 off 193 balls". You also need to say who this was against and when. "though he could manage to make his team victorious" - don't think this is relevant. Just because a player scored a century it isn't unusual that his team lost. "to score a century in an ODI match in this ground" => "to score a century in an ODI match at this ground" "The only centurion in this ground in T20Is is Ahmed Shehzad, scoring 111 runs off just 62 balls" - against whom? When? Dates don't sort correctly in the tables Players' names don't sort correctly in the tables "The following table summarises the Test centuries scored at Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium" - not needed "There are 48 ODI centuries scored on this ground" => "There have been 48 ODI centuries scored on this ground" "The following table summarises the One Day International centuries scored at Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium" - not needed "The following table summarises the Twenty20 International centuries scored at Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium" - not needed Do not show titles in all caps in references In several refs you show the publisher as HowStat, but in the last one it's www.howstat.com That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

:@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much. I fixed all the issues and have edited the article. But I haven't understand what you meant by 'Players' names don't sort correctly'. Actually like other list articles, I also normally sorted the list of centuries according to date(old to new/ascending to descendng). And the date sorting is also correct as I checked. Please check the current version of article again.A.A Prinon (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Players' names should sort based on their surname, so for example Brendan Taylor should sort under T, not B. Also, the dates still don't sort correctly - if you sort on that column it goes 20th March, 2010 > 6th May, 2015 > 11th November, 2018 > 21st October, 2013 > 22nd February, 2020 > 29th October, 2011, which is clearly completely wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Also, I just spotted two listings for "26th Decmeber, 2008", which is spelt incorrectly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC) @A.A Prinon: - I see that the date sorting has now been fixed. Any idea when you will be able to fix the incorrect sorting of players' names......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude:, Actually, I sorted out the list according to date. And in case of the centuries which were scored on the same day, I put the players' name first who reached the centuries first. For example- Brendan Taylor and Mahmudullah both scored century on that ground in the same match. But I put Taylor's name first because he scored century earlier than Mahmudullah in that match. Other list articles of this type also sort like this. A.A Prinon (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC) @A.A Prinon: - you misunderstand what I am saying. It's nothing to do with players scoring centuries on the same day. What I mean is that when you sort the "player" column (click on the sort icon at the top) they do not appear in the right order. If you do this on the Test table, Alastair Cook appears at the top (based on his first name starting with A) when in fact he should sort under C (because his surname starts with C). Does that make sense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude:, Now I got it. Please give some time. I'm working on it and will inform you when fixed. A.A Prinon (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Players name sorting probably fixed! A.A Prinon (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption and both column and rowscopes.

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
• For each column header, you should have e.g. `!scope="col"|Player`
• For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `|1` it should be `!scope="row"|1`

--PresN 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Please wait and give some time. I will try to fix those. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 06:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: I have added the captions and the coloumscopes in the tables. And I have also corrected formatting per MOS:DATB. But I have not added any rowscopes for primary cell, because rowscope for primary cell is not needed in this article. All other article of this type related to cricket centuries also don't have rowscopes for primary cell like `!scope="row"|1`, as it does not comply to manual of style provided by WikiProject Cricket for cricket-related lists. Hope, now everything is fine in your views. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@A.A Prinon: What manual of style are you referring to? I can't find anything linked from WP:CRICKET. The "primary" cell doesn't need to be the first one (though ideally it is), and you can make it so there's no visual effect if you don't like the look, but the cells in 1 column need to be marked with rowscopes or the table does not meet the MOS for accessibility. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that prior cricket FLs don't have rowscopes, as while it's been a requirement for quite a while we only started firmly enforcing it relatively recently, but unfortunately "the tables in cricket lists don't need to meet accessibility standards because WP:CRICKET doesn't want to" isn't going to work. --03:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• Not sure if I missed these first time round, or if the content has changed since.....
• Image caption says "as of February 2021". We're now nearly in May.
• "On 17 January 2018 during 2017–18 Bangladesh Tri-Nation Series" => "On 17 January 2018 during the 2017–18 Bangladesh Tri-Nation Series"
• No need to link Bangladesh national cricket team twice in the first paragraph
• Ireland not linked in the third paragraph
• "The only centurion in this ground in T20Is is Ahmed Shehzad, scoring" => "The only centurion at this ground in T20Is is Ahmed Shehzad, who scored"
• Bangladesh national cricket team linked twice more in the last two paragraphs - neither link is needed
• "Only one Twenty20 International centuries" => "Only one Twenty20 International century"
• Ref 11: "Shere Bangla National Stadium, Mirpur, CricketArchive. Retrieved 2021-04-14" - this date format is not consistent with all the other refs
• Hopefully that's finally it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, Fixed! — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 10:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

One more comment

• Why are the "as of" dates on the three tables different and one of them more than a year ago? This gives the impression that the data is not up to date (i.e. there could have been more T20I centuries achieved there since March 2020) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: The data is up to date. "As of" dates are placed according to the date of last match played on this ground. The last T20I match on this ground was played on 11 March 2020. After then, no T20I matches was played on this ground. So, how could there be any century scored after 11 March 2020. A.A Prinon (Alternative) (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • But the article doesn't say that no T20I matches have been played on this ground since last March, does it? All it says is that the data is accurate as of last March, so a casual reader might look at it and think "well, that data is only accurate up to March 2020 and it's now April 2021. For all I know there have been 5 more T20I centuries scored since then and the article hasn't been updated". If you want to keep the date as being the date of the last match played there, then you should put "As of 11 March 2020, the date of the most recent match played at the ground, only one Twenty20 International century has been scored at...." to make it clear what the situation is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your suggestion. Fixed that as you suggested. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 07:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment there's a purge of these kinds of lists going on right now so it's worth seeing if User:Störm will nominate it for deletion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TRM for ping. I think it will be nice if we can find 1 or 2 sources in any language where these centuries are discussed as a set or group. Regarding AfDs, I think I'm at the very end of my so-called purge, energy is already low. I am about to stop these regular AfDs altogether. Thanks again. Störm (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: Thanks for commenting. Actually, I am working for a long time about finding sources of these lists. I recently have found a source which is not visible in google search but in ESPNcricinfo. See here, here and also here. These sources are enough for these type of articles. Besides these are also discussed as a group in HowStat. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 06:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Where are these centuries discussed? Can we just check that before we waste our time when Störm continues the AFD drive and takes this one down too? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: These are discussed in different match reports of the respective matches in which century was scored. We often see different discussions or reports where it is discussed that it is the Xth century scored at this ground, scored by X player etc. And please post further replies on my talk page other than posting here. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 09:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't doubt that passing mentions are made, but Störm has been nominating articles exactly like this for deletion. And they have often changed their minds on things. I don't want us to waste time in this process if this is about to be deleted soon (or indeed, after some unknown pause). This is directly pertinent to this nomination, even the existence of the very page. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• there are quite a few missing authors: refs 4, 7, 9,
• ref 11 seems to be formatted differently (has a comma)
• ref 27 shouldn't be all caps, recommend title case

Reliability

• seems fine

Verifiability

• no issues. Aza24 (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: Hi. I have fixed all the issues you raised. Thanks for commenting. Please reply here to state if now it is ok or not. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A.A Prinon, just one more thing to address, Knight 2013 in ref 13 doesn't seem to link to any book, will be happy to pass the source review what that is addressed. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Aza24: Yes, I have replaced the ref 13 with a better source. Thank you. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 04:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nuisance, that ref looks great but we need a page number for verifiability. Also, I think the publisher is Sangam Books, right? Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Aza24: I have added the page number. Thank you and hoping for your positive response now. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Further Comment

Hi @A.A Prinon:,

• Ref 11 were not access please fix it.
• It is better to link Bangladeshi.

(Fade258 (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC))

@Fade258: Thanks for comment. I have changed the ref 11 fully because CricketArchive is a subscription site, so hard to verify. And the issue which is raised by you, I have also input that one in the new ref- that is I have given the URL access date. And the second one you said- It is better to link Bangladeshi. Actually, when any same word is already linked in an article, it is not needed to link the word all the time it is used. At the very first sentence of the article, the word "Bangladesh" is already linked. Bangladeshi is just its demonym, so it also links to the article Bangladesh, so it is not needed to link Bangladeshi. I hope now everything is ok and please give a Support if you find no other problems in your views. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Prinon, That is ok but Bangladesh is linked twice One of them is recently done by you and Another one is on the Bangladesh Vs Zimbabwe. (Fade258 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC))

@Fade258: That is different. The word Bangladesh in Bangladesh vs Zimbabwe links to the article Bangladesh national cricket team but "Bangladesh" at the top of the page is linked to the country Bangladesh. Any more issues? Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Prinon, Ohh sorry for my missque.(Fade258 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC))

@Fade258: It is ok, now you may please share your thoughts. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support- As per all the wikipedia guidelines and those guidelines which is used while creating of this article. Great Job @A.A Prinon.(Fade258 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC))

• Support - The page fulfils wikipedia guidlines and it has enough number of references as well. Proudly Indian 9:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Director comment – I was going to ping the nominator to see if PresN's accessibility comment had been resolved, but I see that A.A Prinon has been indeffed for harassment. Does anyone want to have a look at this and fix the issue if it's still outstanding? That seems to be the main obstacle to promotion at this point, barring further comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'll take a look Giants2008. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

My accessibility concern has been addressed; closing as promoted. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [4].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Wire

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's an awards list about a show that is perhaps more notable for the awards it didn't receive. This is modeled after my previous FLCs for various awards lists. As always, any feedback is welcome. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "the large number of Black actors" - don't think black needs a capital
• "It also was nominated" => "It was also nominated"
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• Maybe change Baltimore, Maryland to Baltimore, Maryland

Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Solid work. I'll go ahead and support. ~ HAL333 19:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Other comments

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table. Some will say that "Television Programs of the Year" should sort after "Television: Dramatic Series", but there's no consistency on this on Wikipedia and I think it's fine as is. There are a lot of media lists that I don't feel comfortable doing prose reviews for, and this is one of them, but I don't think that matters for purposes of this review; you know what you're doing, and you've got a couple of supports that include prose already. The coding at the top of the table seems fine.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. There are no images below the lead.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, well done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Wonderful work with the list and it is nice to see this show being featured in more and more featured content on Wikipedia. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. I have read through the lead a few times and I honestly could not find anything that need further adjustment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Some Dude

• Notes #3 and #5 are the same. Can they be merged?
• Wikilink Dave McNary, Alessandra Stanley, and Emma Jones (journalist).
  • Not sure the Emma Jones article refers to the same person this article cites... RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Mark sources from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark sources from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
  • Only certain parts of Rolling Stone seem to be paywalled, and this isn't one of them. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Mark sources from The Atlantic with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark sources from The Baltimore Sun with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark sources from The Wall Street Journal with "|url-access=subscription".
• Sources from BBC.com should link to that (or just BBC Online).
• Be consistent with either San Francisco Chronicle (#7) or SFGate (#44).
  • These are actually two different websites at two different domain names. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• You can use {{IMDb title|id=0306414|title=The Wire|section=awards}} for the external link.

That's it from me. Ping me when done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Comments above – everything I didn't respond to should be fixed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Happy to support. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – I spotted no further formatting issues on top of those already raised above, reliability looks all right throughout, and the links are all in working order. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [5].

---

Johnny Depp filmography

Nominator(s):  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The filmography of Johnny Depp, the guy who portrayed Captain Jack Sparrow, Edward Scissorhands, Sweeny Todd, and some interesting... portrayals of Willy Wonka and the Mad Hatter, among many other roles. Been slowly working on this for about a month primarily working on referencing, and should now hopefully meet the FL criteria.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need a caption ("|+ caption_text", or if that text would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it only visible to screen reader software with "|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}")
• Television table is missing colscopes; Video games table is missing colscopes on one column --PresN 21:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments PresN, I have added relevant sronly caption texts to the tables and filled in the remaining colscopes to the television and video game sections [6]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "In the early 2000s, he appeared in the romance Chocolat (2000), crime Blow (2001) action Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)" - comma missing after (2001), also while you can describe a film as simply a "romance", you can't describe a film as simply a "crime" or an "action", so you need to add the word film after both of those words Done "he portrayed Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean series, starting with The Curse of the Black Pearl and reprised" - comma needed after Pearl Done "For his roles in The Curse of the Black Pearl, Finding Neverland, and Sweeney Todd, Depp was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor" - that reads as if he was nominated for a single Oscar for all three films combined, so I think you need to say "For each of his roles" Done, added each Golden Globe nod for The Tourist is not sourced Done, added ref If you are going to make the "role" column sortable then it needs to sort correctly - characters with a surname need to sort based on the surname, not the forename Done added sortname templates, was not 100% sure how to deal with multiple roles or those with aliases but tried to use my best judgement. Video games table is not sortable whereas the other two are. I know it only has two entries but you may as well be consistent Done, made VG table sortable. For the film where he was only a producer you show the role as "N/A", but for the documentary where he was only a producer you just leave it blank - be consistent Done That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for comments, I have made adjustments [7] and responded above. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For the image caption, include where the photo was taken for context.

  Done, added "Depp at the Deauville American Film Festival in September 2019."

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have a question about the following sentence: He has starred in Dark Shadows (2012) with Michelle Pfeiffer, The Lone Ranger (2013) with Armie Hammer, and Transcendence (2014) with Morgan Freeman. Why point out the co-stars for just these three films in particular? It seems rather random and unnecessary to me.

  I tried to follow some other filmography leads when making this one and some mention co-stars. Though happy to remove if it is deemed redundant (no specific reason those co-stars are mentioned).

• Thank you for the explanation. Upon further reflection and research, the current wording works. When I first read this sentence, I was uncertain about the Dark Shadows part in particular. It makes sense to me to single out a co-star for something like The Lone Ranger, which is very much about these two characters/actors, while I had considered Dark Shadows more of an ensemble work. However, upon further research, most cast listings put Pfeiffer as second billing so the current version actually does match how the film was marketed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• For this sentence, Depp has been described as one of the most versatile and prolific actors of his generation., attribute in the prose who is describing Deep this way as it should be immediately clear to the reader.

  I think this was in lead before I rewrote it and looking at the two sources they each describe him as a "versatile" and "prolific" actor but nothing about "most" or "of his generation" so I have removed it.

• Thank you for double-checking this and removing it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have three comments for this sentence: In recent years he has started to produce some films. There should be a comma after years. Do not use words like "recent years" per MOS:CURRENT because that will change as the list ages and it is better to be more specific. I would also replace "some films" with the exact number or reword it to avoid it as that phrasing is unnecessarily vague.

  I have changed it to Beginning in 2011, he has produced films through his company Infinitum Nihil.

• That is a big improvement. Thank you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why his career decline and setbacks are not addressed at all in this list? For instance, I am surprised nothing about Fantastic Beasts is mentioned in the lead. I would think that it should warrant a sentence about his overall career decline to provide a full context of his filmography/career as I believe this leans a little too positive rather than objective. To be clear, I have a great deal of respect for Depp's work (and sympathy for his current situation), but I think it should worked out somehow.

  There was an extensive discussion/RfC on the main article [8] about whether it is worth mentioning his career setbacks (currently no mention in the lead), and if so how should it be worded. Whilst writing the list I held off to see if it was resolved so something simliar can be added here but no action has been taken there. Personally though, I am happy to mention his setbacks here like being removed from Fantastic Beasts and Pirates of the Caribean, so I'll try to work on wording.

• Thank you for the link. I was unaware that this discussion had taken place. Apologies for not checking that before making my above comment. Just to be clear, I was not referring to any issues in his personal life, although that is probably inextricably linked to his professional decline. I think the Fantastic Beasts part is worth a mention, but I was not aware that his Pirates of the Caribbean was official as I have only heard rumors about it. I will leave this to your better judgement as it is a sticky situation that is still evolving, and this will not hold back my support for the list's promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since there is an entire section devoted to his work in documentary film, I would think that would warrant at least a sentence in the lead.

  Added Moreover, Depp has appeared in many documentary films, mostly as himself.

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You did a great job with the lead. I would imagine that a filmography list for such a well-known actor who has had such a long career is difficult to do. When all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Aoba47: for the comments (it was a tad tricky writing hope it is not too long though), I have responded above. I am not too famliar with writing TV articles (did come across your Lady Blue FA though when rewrote this list) but I'll try to see if can write some comments anyway. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses. I hope that my comments back were not too long. I do have a tendency to ramble. I support the list for promotion. I can better understand the trickiness about discussing the current state of Depp's career so it may be best to leave that to his main article, but I will leave that up to your judgement. I did enjoy reading through this list as it did make me want to go back and rewatch some of his films. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• He has starred --> "He starred"

  Done

• Could you place the scope on the titles rather than the year?

  To my knowledge I do not believe using scope rows on the year as opposed to the film title causes issues in terms of accessability for the table. And it seems many other FL filmographies do it this way as well, though I can happy to check with a more experienced editor than myself about it. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• In the lede, should the (year) be placed directly after the film title?

  Changed

• For each of his roles --> "For each role" or "For each performance"

  Changed to the latter

That's all I got. Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Thank you for the comments I have responded and replied above. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 00:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources are fine, but there's some date format mixing; I've gone and converted them all to US format since that was the primary. Also formatted isbns. Closing as promoted. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [9].

---

Bruce Willis filmography

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I added references. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "earned him international recognition as an action hero." - this statement could do with a source
• "Willis also has lent" - "Willis has also lent" is more natural language IMO
• Film titles starting with a number should sort as if it was written as a word, and titles starting with the word "A" should sort on the next word
• If the date column is re-sorted, the two "TBA" entries act as if they are earlier than 1980 - they should probably sort as if they were later than 2022
• Roles which are a full name (forename/surname) should sort based on the surname rather than the forename
• Unclear why List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a "See also". I presume it's because somewhere on the list is such a film, but that isn't obvious
• Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Column headers need to be marked with colscopes, e.g. "!Year" should be "!scope=col| Year". Colscopes and Rowscopes (below) allow screen reader software to properly read out tables verbally.
• The primary cell of each row should be marked with rowscopes, e.g. "| 1980" should be "!scope=row| 1980"
• Images need alt text, which can just be e.g. "Bruce Willis"; if it's not present, screen reader software instead reads out the file name. --PresN 14:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I have two suggestions for this part, After making a guest appearance in Miami Vice (1984). I would say "guest-starring" as it is more concise. I am uncertain about using the year as a parenthetical as it could imply the show lasted for that year. Something like "guest-starring in a 1984 episode of Miami Vice" would remove that ambiguity.
• Since both his Miami Vice and The Twilight Zone episodes have articles, would it be beneficial to link them in the lead?
• I would revise this part, Since then, Willis, to avoid saying "then" as it is rather vague. It is better to be more exact when possible.
• For this sentence, Overall, films featuring Willis have grossed US$5.3 billion worldwide, making him one of the highest-grossing actors in the world., would it be beneficial to incorporate a "as of X date" as he is still making films so the number could (and likely will) increase with time.

Good work with the list. I really like Bruce Willis so I enjoyed looking through this. It makes me want to go back and rewatch some of his work again. Once all my above comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses. I support this list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 17:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

====Comments from HAL==== Lede is a little short. You should avoid using "would". I'm a little concerned about the final sentence of the lede - that will require constant updating. Make it more chronological. Maybe get it up the four paragraphs. Much of it is unsourced as well. Place the scope on the film titles rather than the year. Some of the sources aren't high quality RS, such as Screen Rant. That's all for now. ~ HAL333 20:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)  Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: While I didn't get it to 4 paragraphs, I have expanded the lead, added references, made it more chronological, and reworded the final sentence so it won't have to be updated until a major milestone. All of your other suggestions have also been  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 17:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – The formatting and reliability of the references both look okay, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. My source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC) [10].

---

MewithoutYou discography

Nominator(s): Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I will admit that this list is outside of my wheelhouse, but following the example of past FLs I think this is ready --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments I might mention in the opening sentence that they are/were a Christian band. I read right through the first paragraph and was quite surprised by the reference right at the end to them charting on the Christian charts Well that is a fun question. I added a long note --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) "....[A→B] Life. [A→B] Life is an post-hardcore..." - any way to avoid writing the album twice so close together? Also "an post-hardcore" isn't right...... I tried something else --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC) I notice that the use of singular/plural to refer to the band is inconsistent - you have "The band was formed in 2001" but then "mewithoutYou released their second album". Personally, being British, I would always use the plural form, but I was under the impression that in the States a band, unless called "The Somethings", was always treated as singular...... Umm. I wrote like I talk. I need to dig into this --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @Guerillero: - did you get to the bottom of this? If it's valid usage in US English to say "the band was formed....the band released their first album" than that's cool and I will close this query and immediately support the nom. I only asked because I had always been led to believe that in the US a band name was always treated as singular (unless it was an indisputable plural like e.g. The Rolling Stones) i.e. an American would say "Coldplay was formed in 1998 and released its first album in 2000". Maybe I have misunderstood....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC) I asked HĐ for guidance. I will wait to see what they say. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the message. Though I am flattered by your remarks, I should clarify that I am just like any other editor in this field. To the main point--I think either plural or singular can be appropriate--though I observe that British English often favors plural (i.e. the Beatles), and American English the other. Whichever is fine, but treat it with consistency throughout the article. The current use in this article is completely fine imo. Best, HĐ (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "By It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright in 2009, the band shifted genres" - this should be either "With It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright in 2009, the band shifted genres" (if the change was a specific single event with the release of that album) or "By It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright in 2009, the band had shifted genres" (if it was more gradual) Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) "The band announced that 2020 would be their last year as an active band in 2019" - wording is mildly confusing, I would suggest "The band announced in 2019 that 2020 would be their last year as an active band" would be clearer Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Refs against Pale Horses are in the wrong order Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Live Albums table should not have a capital A Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Refs against Blood Enough For Us All are in the wrong order Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Refs in the two Appearances tables should be centred to match the others Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Refs against Split with Circa Survive are in the wrong order Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• is there really no other refs for the music videos other than mewithoutYou's website? It would be better to avoid primary sources...
  • I can't find the information in a better place --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, just thought I'd check. Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• I'm not sure Jonathan Bautts can count as the publisher for ref 2
  • Removed --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• your inclusion of locations is inconsistent, unless there is some pattern I'm not identifying
  • Removed --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• You link Billboard but no other publishers/works, I suggest unlinking
  • Unlinked --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• What makes Jonathan Bautts a reliable source?
  • I see that you have been reading my FAC reviews :P It is an interview with one of the band members and the answer comes directly from them. This was a hard one, because of how old the EP is and how rarely people ask the band about Blood Enough For Us All. I can go back to looking for a better source, but I haven't found much. The internet is devoid of references to the EP and there is nothing in newspapers about it. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Sounds good Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• What makes Punk news a reliable source?
  • Punk news is a 22 year old publication with editors. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, see below. Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability

• spotchecks not done. Will probably do some later. Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Have checked a couple (15, 27, 35, 21), looks good.

@Aza24: please let me know what you think -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I was in the middle of looking when you pinged! Given the lesser sourcing restrictions for FLC (vs FAC) I'm inclined to let certain sources be permissible. Give me a second to do some spotchecks... Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, pass for source review. Good work! Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• If any of the tables needs sortability, it would be the one called "Music". I think I buy that the table is short enough that sortability wouldn't make a big difference ... but I'm open to thoughts that you or the other reviewers have on this.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding is fine. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 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 problems. All relevant retrieval dates are present. The source review should have this criterion covered.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. The one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments "seven extended plays " put (EP) after extended play (as it's used in the infobox). Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "and split albums or video collections." or? Added an "in" --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "side project to The Operation by Aaron Weiss" neither are notable it would seem so some context, at least to "The Operation" wouldn't go amiss (e.g. is that a band? Genre? Location? Dates in operation (!)?) Clarifed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "The debut extended play by ... " -> "The debut EP..." Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) What makes bautts.me a WP:RS? It looks like a Wordpress blog. I answered the question for Aza24 above. It is an interview with a member of the band --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "post-hardcore" link. Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "was a turn away" -> "moved away" Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "vocals by Aaron Weiss" -> "vocals from Weiss". AW is not mentioned before this point now --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "with Run For Cover Records in" not a capital f. in the tables too. Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "in 2019 that 2020 would be their last year" -> "in 2019 that the following year would be their last as..." Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "Label: Self" if this means self-released, I'd say "Label: self-released" to be clear it's not a label called "Self". Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "that mewithoutYou has appeared on" -> "on which mewithoutYou has appeared" Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "that mewithoutYou has appeared in" likewise. Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC) That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: let me know what you think --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: a second ping about your review --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891

Can take a look. I have an old FLC myself, if you are interested.

• "The band was formed in 2001 as a side project to The Operation, an alternative band that shares most of its members with mewithoutYou that was active between 1999 and 2001" I don't really like 'that shares... that was", imo it makes the sentence feel a little clunky. Can you rephrase, maybe "The Operation, an alternative band active from 1999 to 2001 that shared most of its members with mewithoutYou"?
  • Done --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• "as a mewithoutYou release is murky." can you expand on this? what does 'official status' mean? What does 'murky' mean? Maybe add note 2 here...
  • I removed that and moved to calling it a demo which is more representative of what it is. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• link campfire songs? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Done --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me know what you think, Eddie891 --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I Feel this meets the FL criteria, support Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC) [11].

---

List of SaGa video games

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... this currently stands as the only Square Enix-related list article not to be featured. I created this article initially, and PresN has done further edits and tidying. While I originally planned this to include all media, that will likely be a different list at another time if that ever materialises due to extensive sourcing difficulties for novelizations, mangas, guides, ect.. I feel this article is relatively close to FL status, and it's best not to let it linger too long. ProtoDrake (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

• I would suggest changing The official website counts... to "Square Enix counts...", because I don't see why it matters that they said it through the series' website... but I also don't really know why this is important in the first place unless RSs are making observations about various ways of counting the games.
• Its first game premiered in Japan in 1989, and SaGa games have subsequently been localized for markets in North America and Europe across multiple video game consoles since its debut on the Game Boy. I don't know if I'm reading this incorrectly, but it seems to be repeating that the series began on the Game Boy in 1989 twice?
• Almost every entry is a standalone title with its own world and gameplay mechanics. could be written more smoothly as something like "Most of the games have their own separate settings and game mechanics"
• Almost every title has been developed with the input or leadership of series creator Akitoshi Kawazu. - I'd suggest rewriting this in active voice, ie "Series creator Akitoshi Kawazu led or advised the development of most of the games"
• SaGa games were released solely for home and handheld consoles since the first release in 1989 through Unlimited Saga in 2002, after which development of new titles ceased and only ports and remakes of existing games for consoles, computers, and mobile phones were produced for a decade. - this feels pretty verbose, and it's repeating that the series began in 1989 for the third time. I would suggest something like "New games in the series were released for home and handheld consoles until Unlimited Saga in 2002, after which Square Enix only developed ports and remakes of already released SaGa games for a decade."
• In 2012 Emperors SaGa, the first of four mobile or web browser games, was released, with the latest, Imperial SaGa Eclipse, produced in 2019, and a single additional release for consoles and computers was SaGa: Scarlet Grace in 2016. also feels much more verbose and convoluted than it needs to be.
• One collection release of SaGa games has been published, the 2020 Collection of SaGa: Final Fantasy Legend for the Nintendo Switch, containing ports of the original three Final Fantasy Legend games. as does this. Also keep in mind that you have not mentioned "Final Fantasy Legend" until this point and that it feels out of nowhere to bring up Final Fantasy, something not explained until the next paragraph.
• Since its debut on Game Boy, the SaGa series has released on over twenty different home and portable consoles, in addition to web browsers and mobile devices.[5] Many titles have been re-released on later platforms, either as a remake or an enhanced port. - this is mostly just repetition of information from the previous two paragraphs, right? You already bring up that Square Enix spent a decade re-releasing old games, and we already know that the series began on Game Boy.
• Assuming "titles" just means games and not films, books, etc, I think "games" is communicating that more clearly
• You have an extra parenthesis in 2020 — Nintendo Switch (Collection of SaGa)[8])
• Was it actually released in Japan as Warrior in the Tower of the Demon World ~ Sa·Ga, or is this just a translation of the Japanese title? Same for the English-Japanese titles of later games
• 2019 — Web Browser[5] - this is not a name, so change to "Web browser"
• In your references, you have Square Enix and Bandai Games presented as works rather than as publishers, and 1UP.com and (sometimes) RPGamer and Siliconera as publishers rather than as works
• USgamer is written with a lowercase G
• The reference titled "魔界塔士 サ・ガ (About)" has a script error
• The reference titled "Romancing SaGa 2 for PS4, Xbox One, Switch, PS Vita, and PC launches December 15 - Gematsu" should have the name of the website removed from the title, and presented as the name of the work instead

Please ping me when you have responded to the above and I will take another look!--Alexandra^IDV 15:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: I hope I've addressed everything above, plus a few extra things such as citation consistency. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Support - I did some additional edits to the citations, but I think it looks good now.--Alexandra^IDV 09:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "SaGa games have subsequently [....] since its debut" - there seems to be a bit of a plural/singular conflict there. Maybe change the second bit to "since the series debuted"
• Actually I think that's all I've got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Sorted, I hope. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I did some copy editing of my own, it looks ready for prime time! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Director comment – We still need a source review here. My knowledge of which sites are reliable for RPGs is not the best, and it looks like PresN had some involvement with preparing the list, so someone else will have to do this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Just had a look over of the sources. There were some missing publishers, a dead link and a missing archive, but I went ahead and took care of those. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Giants2008: :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC) [12].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Vietnam

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A list covers the UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Vietnam. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Damian Vo (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "Hạ Long Bay and Phong Nha – Kẻ Bàng National Park were listed as natural sites in 1994 and 2003, respectively, before receiving the extension...." - not sure what this means. The two sites received an extension? What was this extension? "used as a driving force for development for tourism in Vietnam" => "used as a driving force for the development of tourism in Vietnam" "which are now lies between the Mã and Bưởi rivers" => "which lie between the Mã and Bưởi rivers" ("now" is not appropriate, as presumably they have always been located between those two rivers) "Suffered from the effects of three wars" => "Having suffered from the effects of three wars" "Ha Long Bay features over 1600 limestone pillars, karsts" - is there an appropriate wikilink for karst? I personally have no idea what one is. "Monolithic islands topped with thick jungle vegetation, rising spectacularly from the ocean." - this is not a complete sentence "Locates near the mouth of the Thu Bồn River" => "Located near the mouth of the Thu Bồn River" "Its architecture reflecting a blend" => "Its architecture reflects a blend" "Phong Nha – Kẻ Bàng located in the middle of the Annamite Range" => "Phong Nha – Kẻ Bàng is located in the middle of the Annamite Range" "Tràng An is a scenic area locates at the southern margin" => "Tràng An is a scenic area located at the southern margin" "A number of researchers found traces similar of 3 kinds of writing system" - no reason for the word "similar" there, as far as I can see "Ba Bể – Na Hang Natural Heritage Area covered by primeval forests" => "Ba Bể – Na Hang Natural Heritage Area is covered by primeval forests" "The area is converged by Gấm River, Năng River, and Ba Bể Lake on karst mountain." - sorry, but I don't understand this at all, it doesn't make sense. Can you reword at all so I can figure out what it's meant to be saying? "Many caves exist for over 10,000 years" => "Many caves have existed for over 10,000 years" "one of the natural forests remaining in Vietnam" - one of the many? one of the few? "The archaeological site composes of 10 different soil layers." => "The archaeological site consists of 10 different soil layers." "Hạ Long Bay was recognized by UNESCO as World Natural Heritage" - should this be "a World Natural Heritage site"? Quite a bit to do there but it should all be easily fixable :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed all your comments above. Damian Vo (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Comment I still don't understand the wording "The karst mountains are converged by Gấm River, Năng River, and Ba Bể Lake". Do you mean that the mountains are located where those two rivers meet that lake? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC) "converged" was used in the UNESCO link so I automatically thought that was fine. I changed it with "surrounded by". Damian Vo (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank u so much :D Damian Vo (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption (you have one in the key, but not the main tables).

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`

--PresN 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Added. Damian Vo (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I like that the lead has a couple sources that tie them together as a set of places the government oversees for tourism. Cite [5] did not open for me, however.

Fixed. 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Damian Vo (talk)

• The table titles don't need to restate the column headings, "World Heritage Sites" and "Tentative sites" would be fine

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I merged the refs into the description like other WHS FLs, they don't need their own column
• "It is considered by UNESCO" is unnecessary, you can just describe this as a fact with a citation.

Removed. Damian Vo (talk)

• "center of the regional political power of Đại Việt for almost thirteen centuries" is very close to the source, please paraphrase more in your own words.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "started when Lý Công Uẩn moved the capital of Đại Việt in 1910" in the note [a] is weird grammar, not entirely sure what this means, 1910–2010 is a century

I removed this note altogether since it seems a little bit unnecessary to the article. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is 1397 considered "ancient"? the source doesn't call the city that.

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Having suffered from the effects of three wars" should be preceded by "Despite"

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Karst is a topography or descriptor, not a countable object, so "1600 limestone pillars, karsts..." doesn't make sense

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Laos' -> Laos's per MOS:POSS

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "one of the most outstanding limestone karst ecosystems in the world" and "contains terrestrial and aquatic habitats, primary and secondary forest" is too close to the source, please avoid copying
• "Exploration of caves has revealed archaeological traces of human activity for more than 30,000 years, ranging through the Neolithic and Bronze Ages to the historical era" same
• The average WHS description is shorter than the average tentative site's; consider adding a little to the shorter ones.

Some of the Tentative sites contain a list of group areas submitted for consideration, therefore it looks longer but still carries the same amount of sentences as the WHS description. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The most common patterns are images of mountains, hills, and fields" Again, this is lifted directly from the source, which is actually copyrighted.
• "three kinds of writing system: the pictographs of Han Chinese, as well as talismans of Tày and Dao ethnic group" skip "as well as" because you've introduced a three-item list

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "historical-cultural relics, many traditions and beliefs that are of both tangible and intangible heritage values" same
• Biodiversity is one word; "example of mature karst in sub-tropical wet conditions" same
• "The Hương Sơn Complex comprises three groups of pagodas, temples, and caves linked with one another by waterways" same

Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. I tried to give the sentences mentioned above a little tweak. Please have a look :D Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Reywas92^Talk 18:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "the 17th session of the World Heritage Committee held in Colombia in 1993." where is that referenced?
• "the first and only mixed site in Southeast Asia" source says first but not only, and in any case is 6 years old.
• "centuries.[9][4]" order.
• "considered a remarkable construction" by whom?
• "caves.[15][14]" order.
• "over 1600" more than.
• "significant slice of" not encyclopedic in tone, more like a guidebook.
• "one of the most magnificent limestone" according to whom? Encyclopedia, not guidebook.
• "passage.[22][21]" order.
• Sortable tables should link linked items every time, e.g. karst.
• "established here in" no need for "here".
• 1438 is 1438bis.
• "As of 2019" it's 2021, is this still the case?
• "old carved" old?!
• "200 old carved stones and megaliths. Stones are carved with different " -> " 200 stones and megaliths, carved with different..."
• "with lots of" not encyclopedic tone.
• "The Yến Tử Monuments and Landscapes" I can't see (vii) in the English source and can't read Vietnamese...
• "geologic" why not geological?
• "the vii criteria" criterion (vii).
• satisfies the viii criteria likewise.
• General: singular of criteria is criterion.
• Ref 41 has two spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.

That's enough from me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! I just resolved the queries above, please have a look :D Damian Vo (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Hi it's been two months since your review :D Let me know if you have any more comments. Damian Vo (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• There's quite a few retrieval dates missing

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• Checked a few, no issues
• Since the refs are all archived, the missing retrieval dates aren't pertinent enough to prevent a pass (though I would still recommend adding them). Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Added missing retrieval dates. Damian Vo (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• Complex of Huế Monuments As you do later in the list, I would place "the" before it.
• the sites became tourist destinations and used as a driving force for the development of tourism in Vietnam is a little awkward. I would reword.

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 22:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Gave it a little tweak. Thank you for the comments. Damian Vo (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 16:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC) [13].

---

List of University of Illinois Presidents

Nominator(s): Thrakkx (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list features all of the relevant information one would need to know about the office of the president of the University of Illinois System. Thrakkx (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I would integrate the "History" section into the lede.
  • Done
• Much of the lede/history is unsourced.
  • I assume I was writing too many sentences between my sources, so I added references more frequently.
• Add links to the image caption
  • Done
• Why not just spell out the notes?
  • Changed
• Another image would be nice.
  • Added another image. I could modify the table to resemble the image setup which appears on List of presidents of the United States, but not every president on this list has a picture available.
    • Depends on how many don't have pictures. If it's only a few, go ahead. But if you're missing half, it'll work as is. ~ HAL333 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Link Illinois Industrial University.
  • Done
• Add sortability to the table.
  • Done

More later. ~ HAL333 18:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Made changes according to your recommendations. Thrakkx (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Captions don't need periods.
  • Changed
• Could you add scope to the name column?
  • Not sure what you mean here.
• Link Stanley O. Ikenberry both times in the table.
  • Changed
• Was White the only president to resign? Did any die in office?
  • Based off of the short bios of each, none died in office. White is the only president to have resigned from a scandal. The next closest to a scandal would be Stoddard's presidency, who was ousted with a no confidence vote.
• Personal preference, but I think the images would look better if upright.
  • Changed

That's all. A short and simple list, but effective. ~ HAL333 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• • • Changes made Thrakkx (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Support Very sorry for my tardiness. ~ HAL333 22:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments The first two sentences would be better the opposite way round Reworded "The current president is Timothy Killeen since May 18, 2015." => "The current president is Timothy Killeen, who has held the position since May 18, 2015." Changed Don't need to wikilink JM Gregory in the first sentence of para 2 considering that you only just linked him in the penultimate sentence of para 1 Changed "the original, Urbana-Champaign campus" - no need for that comma Removed "performs duties that are assigned by the president" => "perform duties that are assigned by the president" (the subject is the chancellors (plural)) Changed Don't think the xlink to President's House in the infobox is appropriate Removed Image captions do not need to see "portait of"/"photo of" Removed Ref 9 does not make any mention of White's resignation, so that will need a separate ref Added reference Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Changes made Thrakkx (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Suggestion by the nominator: The title of this article is not the greatest. "Presidents" should not be capitalized for one, and the wording is out of line with other articles about lists of presidents (usually it reads "List of presidents of ..."). The title should be switched to List of presidents of the University of Illinois or List of presidents of the University of Illinois system. I'm not sure I have the power to do that, and if I do, whether that would cause a problem, since it's in the middle of a nomination. Thrakkx (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC) You do have the power to do that, and no it won't cause any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I notice that the article has now been moved to List of presidents of the University of Illinois System, but the capitalisation is inconsistent with University of Illinois system....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Bizarrely, I noticed that our article on the system itself is at University of Illinois system (lower case S) but the first five words of the article are "The University of Illinois System...." (capital S). So is it correctly written with a capital or not.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I noticed that too. That seems to be a mistake on Wikipedia's part. I checked some the system's own publications and they use a capital S. I assume we would go with the capital then. Thrakkx (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Non-source related, but I find the notes column to take up a lot of space for no real purpose. Most of the entries are blank after all. I wonder if the remaining notes can be converted to literal notes next to the appropriate name (perhaps with the use of the {{efn}} template) to avoid this.
  • Adopted

@Aza24: I made a lot of additions to the sources per User:The Rambling Man's comments. Would you mind taking a second look? Thrakkx (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Don't know if I ever responded to this but yes it looks fine still. Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• multiple pages should be "pp." not "p."
  • Corrected
• Your inclusion of locations is inconsitent
  • Corrected. Locations removed from sources
• there is discontinuity with labeling the University of Illinois System as publisher vs website throughout.
  • Corrected. All listed as publisher.

Reliability

• I have no doubts on reliabillity.

Verifiability

• Spotchecks not done, will probably briefly do at some point. Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Made recommended changes. Thrakkx (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Pass for source review (unrelated query below) Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

• Completely optional, but I thought I'd bring up the potential use of a timeline graph—which I think is rather neat (You can see one I made lower down on the Librarian of Congress page). If you're interested, it may be worth inclusion; you can either make it yourself or I'd be open to doing so, in case you're not sure how to go about it. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That sounds like it would be good for inclusion (as long as it is allowed under WP:FL) The List of presidents of the University of Washington has one that I've seen. I like them. I have no experience in making one; you can have at it! Thrakkx (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I added it. Thrakkx (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks good! Sorry that I missed your earlier comment, or I would have done it myself :) Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing column and rowscopes, as well as a caption and rowscopes.

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
• Each column header should be marked with `scope="col"`, e.g. `! colspan=2 | Presidency` should be `! colspan=2 scope="col" | Presidency`
• For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1` it should be `!scope="row"| 1`. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`

--PresN 14:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done; Question: what about the bottom row of the table that lists the source? Thrakkx (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, missed that- yeah, even at the bottom column headers are contraindicated per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. Consider moving the reference into the top header like your note is, or into the text. --PresN 14:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thrakkx (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• According to our own article on the subject, University of Illinois system, the "s" of system is not capitalised, so why is it capitalised throughout here? Some templates do capitalise the S, some don't, looks like the category does... bit of a mess which need to be sorted out.

 Comment: So this is puzzling to me. I believe capitalizing the "s" is correct here. "University of Illinois System" is a proper noun and it is the naming convention that the institution itself uses. The article title does have a lowercase "s," but every mention of the system in the article had an "S" until April 22 of this year. At some point in the article history, someone redirected capital System to lowercase system, citing WP:NCCAPS; yet in the very first sentence, it says capitalizing proper nouns is the correct convention. Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "operation of the university" previous sentence had plural "universities".

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "the appropriate senate" I don't really understand what that means.

 Fixed. "Appropriate senate" refers to each university senate. I changed the wording to "On recommendation of each university and..." Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "John Milton Gregory served as the first president" and "elected John Milton Gregory as the first president" repetitive.

 Fixed to "elected John Milton Gregory as president." Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "David D. Henry" redlinked in the table but not the lead?

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• The year ranges in the table appear to be using em-dashes, not en-dashes.

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• There's not much here on each entry in the table, such as why did each president leave? What did they do during their tenure, if anything?

 Comment: I will use the source listed in the table to craft some tenure summaries later in a few days and see what you think. Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I made updates to the table. Would love your input. Thrakkx (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• There's an unexplained gap between 1953 and 1954.

 Fixed. Typo. Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• And 2009 and 2010.

 Comment: According to the sources, it seems that White stepped down at the end of December 2009 and Ikenberry picked up at the beginning of January 2010, so I believe this gap would be justified. Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Timeline year ranges should comply with MOS:DATERANGE.

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Notes, be consistent with use of periods: sentence fragments normally don't take them, complete sentences do.

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Sdkb

• There's redundancy in the lead from mentioning Gregory twice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed; changed wording to "established the office of the president," so that Gregory is not named twice.

• The president's salary would be a good piece of info to include; it should be available somewhere publicly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Added

• The notes column should not be sortable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed

• University of Illinois system has a lowercase s. I think we should probably follow that lead here, which will include moving the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for the comments! Thrakkx (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment from nominator: what's the holdup?

Every comment here has been addressed, the article has passed image/source/etc. reviews (in some cases twice), and (only) one reviewer expressed their support. Is there anything left to be done? This FLC is quite old at this point... Thrakkx (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support I can't find any faults --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC) [14].

---

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Columbia University

Nominator(s): alphalfalfa^(talk) 03:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. alphalfalfa^(talk) 03:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Per WP:CHRONO, the tables should be in chronological order, not reverse chronological order i.e. the earliest laureates should be at the top, not the bottom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude Fixed. alphalfalfa^(talk) 18:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - you only changed "as of October 2020" in one place, but I took care of the other one for you :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Caption for lead image should capitalize "Columbia university" Opening with "This list of Nobel laureates affiliated with Columbia University..." is discouraged per MOS:FIRST. No need for italics in footnote a Footnote b is superfluous – information in the lead is assumed to be sourced by the body "At Columbia University, the specific academic title solely determines the type of affiliation, regardless of the actual time the position was held by a laureate." – needs a source Some citations use the URL for the website name (i.e., "www.columbia.edu"), while others use the actual name (i.e., "Columbia University"). Pick one or the other and stick with it. Footnotes c and d cite Wikipedia policy, which is unnecessary. While editors might care about policy, that is best left to talk pages, not the article itself. I would remove these notes. Descriptions in the "Role at Columbia University" column of the "Some visitors and staff not qualified..." are not full sentences and therefore shouldn't have periods Underlining names in "Summary" table is discouraged per MOS:BADEMPHASIS, since it could be confused with a link. I would suggest using a different symbol and not wikilinking names that appear a second time, while also removing the underlining. No need for italics in this table as well Additionally, this table should also use chronological order. "Image" column header should not be double-bolded "Image" column should be unsortable "Name" column should sort by last name or family name "B.A" → "B.A.", "B.S" → "B.S.", "M.A" → "M.A.", "M.S" → "M.S.", and "M.D" → "M.D." (alternatively, remove all periods; just don't use a period after only the first part) Some sources (i.e., source 39 – Gell-Mann's CV) are not fully formatted citations with website names, access dates, etc. All images need alt text Archive sources — RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123 Done. alphalfalfa(talk) 04:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC) I see two more quick fixes remaining: the lead image needs alt text, and the Category column of the Summary table still uses italics. Other than that, the changes look good! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123 Fixed! Thanks for the feedback. alphalfalfa(talk) 01:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Support – nice job! RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "As of October 2020" (in two places) - that was nearly nine months ago, it could do with updating. If it says that because that's when the most recent awards were given out, maybe consider saying "as of the 2020 awards"
• "Affiliates during the Manhattan Project...." - wouldn't hurt to add a few words to explain what this was for those who don't know eg "Affiliates during the Manhattan Project, the research program which developed the first nuclear weapons....."
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• There's a random large whitespace in the notes section

• • @ChrisTheDude Done! alphalfalfa^(talk) 06:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Support, but with a few comments:

1. I created this page for Columbia, and for a few other top universities. Every year around October, I update the main list List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation together with a few other editors (and so that's why there is the saying "as of October 2020"), and the original purpose to set up these individual pages was to control the main article size and to provide details on universities with large numbers of laurates.
2. For consistency and fairness, the criteria for the inclusion of laureates are the same among all universities. As for the military affiliations such as those who worked for the military during the Manhattan project, there was a consensus to exclude them from the lists and only count academic positions, otherwise there'd be huge inflation for several universities.
3. The general format in the individual pages of different universities remains almost identical (e.g., List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard University), and was designed for easy comparison and data collection. For example, we generally keep the most recent laureates at the beginning of the tables so that it is easier to count (and proofread) how many laureates won since 2000.
4. Finally, to keep neutrality, I'd refrain from focusing too much on a single university. But since editor @Alphalfalfa: has chosen to nominate the Columbia's page for featured article, I'd like to give my support and appreciation. However, given what I said above, please do not alter the format and content too much. Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The tables needs a caption, e.g. at the top of the table code add "|+ <table_caption_text>" or, if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can make it only for screen reader software like "|+ {{sronly|<table_caption_text>}}". Captions allow screen reader software to jump to tables by name. You have one for the first table (though it has a line break for some reason) but not the other
• Column headers need to be marked with colscopes, e.g. "!Name" should be "!scope=col| Name". Colscopes and Rowscopes (below) allow screen reader software to properly read out tables verbally.
• The primary cell of each row should be marked with rowscopes, e.g. "|Wilhelm Wien" should be "!scope=row| Wilhelm Wien" --PresN 02:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• • @PresN Done! alphalfalfa^(talk) 06:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review –

• The all caps in the titles of refs 12 and 73 should be removed.
• Refs 33, 38 and 134 are missing publishers.
• Other than those points, the formatting and reliability look okay throughout, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008 (Talk) Done! alphalfalfa^(talk) 07:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    • With those points resolved, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Support, with one comment:

the degree abbreviations (B.A., M.D., Ph.D., etc.) should not include periods. MOS:ABBR states that Wikipedia generally avoids using full point in upper-case acronyms. That is particularly important here, since the initialism in "EKA Lecturer" does not use full point. To fix the inconsistency, I say remove the periods. Thrakkx (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Done! alphalfalfa^(talk) 20:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC) [15].

---

List of orders of battle for the British 2nd Division

This is the third sub-article that was created to support (and shorten) the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, although the second to make it here. The 2nd Division was founded during the Napoleonic Wars, and also fought in the Crimean War, the Second Boer War, and both the First and the Second World Wars. This is a list of the orders of battle, in potentially collapsible tables, for each of these wars. Each section provides orders of battle for each war, and some additional information such as a brief overview, strengths, equipment used etc. Per the suggestion from buidhe, I have skipped over an initial run at A-Class. Look forward to the comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "The divisional insignia used from ~1940 through 2012" - this is a British subject so should be written in British English. "[date] through [date]" is not used in British English I am a Brit living in, and corrupted by, America ;) It looks right to me, so how would suggest would the best way to rephrase this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) I think just "until 2012" works just fine -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I have adjusted that sentenceEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC) "through to the end of the 19th Century" - don't think century should have a capital TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Lead seems a bit on the short side, any way it could be expanded a bit? I have expanded the lede a little, although it is still somewhat short. Any additional suggestions for information to go in there, or improvements to be made to the expanded part?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) 1810-1811 - "Brigades are referenced by their commander's name" - there's only one name shown, does this mean that the others were referred to by different commanders' names but you haven't shown them? Yes. For example, I opted for the "Division's 1st Brigade" rather than repeating the information numerous times with Stewart’s Brigade, Colborne’s Brigade, and Byng’s Brigade. Especially since there is no information in Oman's work that references when these brigade commanders moved between brigades or new formations. I have made some changes to the two orders of battle that referenced this, to try and clear up the language employed. Do the changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) "a new 2nd Division was formed following the reorganization" - the last word is spelt "reorganisation" in British English TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) "detached between 26 July 1944 until 19 September 1944" - should be either "between.....and" or "from.....until", but not "between....until" TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Same for the next brigade listed "(from 3 September 1939, until 14 December 1940)" / "(from 9 September 1941 until 19 October 1941)" - either have the comma in both or neither, but be consistent TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Similar usages further down use the comma, so I guess you want to add the comma to the second one above TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Some of the books in the references have two dates listed - what does that indicate? The dates in square brackets was the year the work was originally published, using the current cite book template. "Does not meet WP:RS." under the last "further reading" entry seems a bit meta, I wouldn't bother mentioning that RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) That's what I've got - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all, and have otherwise left comments for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891

• When I click on the 'hide' button, nothing happens. What's the point of it?

  They worked on my laptop, but did not display on my phone. I had hoped to keep the tables to allow readers to minimize them to help navigation, but that does seem to have worked. I have removed the tables entirely, and replaced each with a subsection. I have tested this on my laptop, and it looks a little funky compared to what I am use to seeing. However, the tweaks help with viewing on the phone. Thoughts?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• "An order of battle is defined as" defined by who? Alternatively, the quote could be rephrased into wiki-voice
• "An order of battle was" but it is now? Why the past tense?
• "Elements of brigades or the brigade themselves could be changed, as could the adding or removing of divisional assets such as artillery. " not sure this sentence works-- could you tweak it or explain how it does
• " with the formation that was formed " Would it be possible to avoid a form of form twice in such close succession?

  I have made various tweaks to the lede with these four points in mind.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Our article on the division says it was re-raised in the 1990s. Why no mention of this in the list article?

  Largely this is due to the lack of reliable sources that discuss the division's order of battle during the Cold War period through to the 2010s. So, with that in mind, I restricted the article to OOBs that would correspond with the wars the division fought in. I had wanted to avoid stating that outright, as similar language had been flagged as something that was not needed. However, I have added in an extra line on the end of the lede, based off your comment. Does this work? Or, suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• otherwise prose seems reasonable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Lost track of this one. I'm satisfied to support Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Just dropping by to say ... I added some dashes per MOS. (I'm not positive about the dashes I added to the titles in the refs ... people used to insist on that per MOS, but maybe things have changed over time.) Hang in there ... things are a little slow right now at FLC for everyone. I'm more used to reviewing tables at FLC ... I'm unsure of what to do with this format, but as soon as you get another support, I'll come take another look and see if I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Now that I've been eliminated from the Wikicup, I'm more comfortable doing a half-baked review here (they tend to frown on those at the Wikicup). I'll be back when I'm finished preparing my next nom. I won't be doing a prose review ... my guess is that you won't need another prose review at this point, but if someone disagrees, you can always solicit one at Milhist. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems in the References section (but this isn't a source review).
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine, and they add a lot to the page. (Disclaimer: I have no clue about copyright issues for insignia and flags, but I trust Parsecboy's review below.)
• 6. It is stable.
• I'm more used to working with tables at FLC, so I can't comment on formatting and structure, and I'm not comfortable doing a prose review here ... but that shouldn't be an issue here since you've got prose reviews already, and it should be easy to get another one if you need one.
• With those caveats ... Support, well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Be consistent with re-linking things after the lead, eg you do relink British Army but not division.

  I have made another pass, and added a few linksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Any images that could be included to brighten up the volumes of text?

  I have added in several photos and paintings, but tried not to overwhelm with them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• During this period, ... during this period. - repetitive.

  Tweaked a thingsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Capitalisation of "brigade" seems inconsistent.

  If I have not missed any examples, I believe all use of capital letters are when they are proper nouns. In the 1810–1811 section, for example, I have not opted for any capitals as the brigade were not called the "First Brigade" etc. at that point. During that period, they were named after the commander and the list of who they are is not complete, and it would duplicate a lot of info. If that is not the case, can you highlight what I have missed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• 2nd Division[13][14] - is this supposed to be a sub-heading?

  The article started off with tables, with the table title with the source info. When the tables were removed, I left the title name with the source. It was not intended to be a subheading. The various "2nd Division" could be removed and the sources duplicated after the brigade name? i.e. "The division's 1st brigade:" and "The division's 2nd brigade:" What would you advise?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is "5/60th Regiment" same as "5th Battalion, 60th Regiment"?

  It is, and I have updated to include "5th Battalion"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Page ranges should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.

  I believe I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "pp. 496 and 513" -> "pp. 496, 513"

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is this article linked from the "Divisions of the British Army" template? I'm not seeing it and if not, the template shouldn't be there.

  Template removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have on a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time and review. I have addressed a few of the issues you raised above and left a few comments. I will make another pass on the links and language soon, and try and find some images.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Her Majestys Postal Office should probably have a location like the rest

  I am glad you caught that, and I have no idea why I typed it like that. I have just added the location, and fixed it to Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• You have some publishers linked but not others, should be one way or the other for all publishers

  I have removed the links

• Retrieval dates from Wyrall are probably uncalled for as the book is already published and won't be changing, no issues if you still want to keep them though

  Good point, and removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• First-rate sourcing

Verifiability

• No issues here Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments and review. I have tried to address the points you raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are appropriately licensed.
• Can we make the depiction of Waterloo a bit larger? It's a fairly detailed image and it's difficult to make anything out at the current size. I'd suggest using the "upright=1.x" parameter (play with the decimal point to find what looks best - I usually do between 1.3 and 1.5 for most cases, but have gone so far as 2.5 in some cases)

Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for looking over the article, and the above comments. I have updated the image, and after a couple of reviews I have opted for 2.5 so to get a decent look at the painting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks much better to me, nice work on the list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC) [16].

---

List of marches composed by John Philip Sousa

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list which contains almost everything related to the topic, including title and year of composition, brief description, audio files and images. It was originally a redirect page, redirecting to List of compositions by John Philip Sousa, but I think the topic deserved its separate list. It is a long list consisting of 136 marches Sousa composed. Marches and description is suitably cited. Appreciate any feedback. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

;Comments I received a request on my talk page to help with this FLC. While I have done work on music articles and lists, this is outside of my comfort zone, but hopefully, that will help to provide an outside perspective. My comments are below: I would link melody and operetta in this part, such as melodies and operettas to aid readers who may be unfamiliar with these terms. I have rather confused by this sentence: However, only those compositions that were initially transformed as marches from other compositions are mentioned. I am assuming it is intended to clarify what compositions made this list and why others did not. I just find it a strange thing to put in the lead, since it breaks away from Sousa to talk about Wikipedia, and I think this would work better as an endnote. I would link United States presidential inaugural balls in this part, performed at the inaugural balls of President. For this part, He is known as "The March King"., could you clarify who knew him as this (and if possible who gave him this name)? I would combine the third paragraph with the second as I do not really see a need for a one-sentence paragraph. For this part, "Library of Congress", his last march, unfinished, I think it would actually read better as his last march, "Library of Congress", unfinished. For the entries without an audio sample, is there a reason? Are they just not played often so finding a suitable audio sample is difficult? In the table, the marches' titles should be in quotation marks. I would add more context for this image caption, Sousa in 1929. This image caption, Sousa conducting the band at White House in 1930., should not have a period as it is not a full sentence. Avoid putting words in all caps for the citation titles (example of this are citations 197 and 198). Even if the original source does this, it should still not be done on here. For the Bierley book, I would capitalize "Works". It is not done like this in the source, but I think it should be capitalized regardless. I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. I have focused on the prose and I will leave the sources and images to another reviewer. I hope you have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC) Hi @Aoba47: Thanks for your comments, which were really helpful. I have made the changes in this edit. "For the entries without an audio sample, is there a reason? Are they just not played often so finding a suitable audio sample is difficult?" — Yes, all the audio files are taken from U.S. Marine Band's "The Complete Marches of John Philip Sousa" section, but they have skipped some unpopular marches, so it is difficult to find a audio sample. Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to everything. I support the list for promotion. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "A British band journalist remarked Sousa as "The March King", upon his comparison with "The Waltz King"" => "A British band journalist named Sousa "The March King", in comparison to "The Waltz King"" "Only those compositions that were initially transformed as marches from other compositions are mentioned in the list." - I don't get this. It suggests that every single entry on this list was transformed from another form, but earlier you said that only "a few" of his marches were derived from other compositions. Am I missing something here? Titles starting with "The" should sort based on the next word in the title "This march was composed and dedicated to Milton Nobles" => "This march was dedicated to Milton Nobles" "The hymn "In the sweet, bye and bye"" => "The hymn In the Sweet By-and-By" "a previous piece of which that he composed" => "a previous piece of which he composed" "but was that changed to "The Federal"" => "but that was changed to "The Federal"" Note against "U.S. Field Artillery" is missing a full stop at the end "but however, that title was crossed at marches' music manuscript" => "but that title was crossed out on the march's music manuscript" "He dedicated it to U.S. Navy was named after the U.S. Navy's emblem" => "He dedicated it to the U.S. Navy and it was named after the U.S. Navy's emblem" ""obles of the Mystic Shrine "was composed " - the N is missing, and the space should be after the closing quote mark, not before ""The Gridiron Club" was composed in The version of march" - part of the first sentence seems to be missing Madison Square Garden should have a capital on every word ""Daughter of Teas" was composed" - missing the X "Sousa's another march" => "another of Sousa's marches" "He composed various other melodies found in his suited and operettas" - suites, not suited "Five of 21 countries, that were at war with Germany.2 => "Five of the 21 countries that were at war with Germany" (no full stop) That's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Hi @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your comments. I have made all the changes in these edits. Template: Sort is added to sort the Titles starting with "The" and "A". I have removed the sentence "Only those compositions that were initially transformed as marches from other compositions are mentioned in the list.", as it was confusing. Also there is little use of adding the inclusion criteria as it is mentioned in a footnote that "some of his compositions are mistaken to be marches", so it is clear that those mistaken to be marches are definitely not included. I hope everything else is fine. Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

Resolved Accessibility review by PresN 03:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The table needs a caption, e.g. at the top of the table code change "|+" to "|+ <table_caption_text>" or, if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can make it only for screen reader software like "|+ {{sronly|<table_caption_text>}}". Captions allow screen reader software to jump to tables by name. Column headers need to be marked with colscopes, e.g. "!Title" should be "!scope=col| Title". Colscopes and Rowscopes (which you have) allow screen reader software to properly read out tables verbally. --PresN 02:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC) @PresN: I have added caption for the table (only for screen reader software) and Column headers are marked by "!scope=col" in this edit. Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! --PresN 03:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:"University of Illinois March" Cover.jpg Needs PD-US rationale. Also, who was the artist of the cover? The copyright would probably be held by the artist.
• Other images look OK (t · c) buidhe 09:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Buidhe: Thanks for you Image Review. File:"University of Illinois March" Cover.jpg does needs a Public Domain tag, but I am not able to determine whether to use {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}. The source (1) doesn't mention the artist of the cover. I removed the image from the list as except it, all other seems fine. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Passed Source review by Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Will I was going to leave some non-source comments but there's really nothing to say. My only non-source quibble would be this: I'm not sure the "see also" section is needed at all, considering the terms in question are included rather prominently in the lead as well as the lower template. This is not, however, anything I would oppose over if you disagree. Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Version reviewed: [17] Formatting Britannica is saying their date (under "Cite me") is 2 March 2021 Though not necessary, if you want the "|" from the titles of the Brittanica and Allmusic articles, you need only add | in place of them seem to missing AllMusic as the website/publisher for ref 3 "Lincoln, Nebraska" is the only location you include, so you may want to remove it Mar 26, 2018 seems to be the date for ref 16 Authors missing in ref 73 It seems like most, if not all, of the Lovrien refs are missing their dates Reliability No issues Verifiability Is there a source for note a—is it also ref 2? If so, I would add the ref there, just to be safe. A source would be nice for note b, but it's not a huge deal Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Hi @Aza24, I have made most of the changes. The "See also" section is removed, the date is changes in Britannica refs, and dates are added to all nine "Lovrien" refs. Have made other changes too as you specified. Let me know if I left something, or is anything else is required. Thanks a lot! — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In the image caption, I'm not sure why "Music" is capitalised? "136 marches,[a] from" no need for comma, move footnote to end of sentence. Footnote [a]: "mistaken to be" -> "mistaken for". "A few..." lacking in encyclopedic tone. "the same public"" -> "the same level of public". "the University of Minnesota,[5] University of Illinois..." each university should be "the" here, or else make it "the universities of Minnesota, Illinois... etc". "'now known as Widener University..." Illinois is also known differently today. "and made many tours" you don't really "make" a tour, you "go on a tour" etc. "of 77 leaving" comma after 77. "the new leader" the new band leader. For missing audio, put an en-dash or something in the table cell, I don't think empty cells are helpful. "the 1880's," no apostrophe required. "march borrows its title" takes, rather than borrows. "the inauguration of James A. Garfield, and" link Garfield, and ensure that all linked items are linked each time in this sortable table. "Washington D.C. [20]" comma after Washington, no space before ref. "surrender at Yorktown" pipelink all of it not just Yorktown. ", "There Is a Man in Our Town", etc.[48]" -> "and "There Is a Man in Our Town".[48]" "composition is unknown, but it was published four years after its composition" repetitive "composition". "Corcoran Cadets" who? "1891-92" en-dash. "of "God save the King" [20]" Save, not save, and needs punctuation and no space before ref. "with the British Royal Navy" take British out of the pipe, it's not part of the formal name of the organisation. "at Boston food fair" at the Boston food fair. "President of Philadelphia scout organization." ilkewise. "men of U.S. infantry [102]" likewise. And punctuation/no space again. I suggest a good copyedit of these kinds of issue throughout the list. "311th cavalry" Cavalry. "was heartily, but seriously received" I don't really know what that means. "on International Magna Carta day Association" eh? "its band to be the finest college band" repetitive. Check refs for spaced hyphens e.g. ref 3, should be en-dashes per MOS. Ref 3 you link the website but don't appear to do that with many/any of the other refs. Ref 160 has the source in the title, not required. NYT source requires a subscription. That's all I have on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @The Rambling Man: Thanks a lot for your comments. I have tried to fix most of them in these edits. Just not sure whether to use en-dash for missing audio files or not. Still, please review my edits and let me know if I missed something. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Also, I just found out that "List of national anthems", which is a FL also has a few missing audio files, but has not added any dashes in those cells. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not important. Please just fill in the empty cells otherwise it looks like you've just forgotten. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Done—I have added en dashes in the empty cells in this edit. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: Just a note that I have responded to everything. "Is there a consensus for promotion of this nomination?" Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Two supports is a little light for promotion. We could use at least one more good review here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Not rushing, but requesting you to take a second look as we have two more detailed reviews, which are resolved. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL333

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 18:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

* References need to be centered. You could shorten the column "Composition year" to just "year". It is considered to be a revised version --> "It is considered a revised version" This march is considered to be a version of "Mother Goose" --> "This march is considered a version of "Mother Goose" Sousa considered this march to be an echo of the Spanish-American war --> "Sousa considered this march an echo of the Spanish-American war" The sentence His admiration of horses is reflected by this march as he considered black horses used in Guard Unit to be his inspiration is a little awkward/unclear. Reword. considered its band to be the finest --> "considered its band the finest" It was premiered --> "It premiered" This march was presented by Sousa's heirs to the Library of Congress in 1970. --> "Sousa's heirs presented this march to the Library of Congress in 1970." Lots of stuff like This march was composed --> "Sousa composed this march" Weed out the rest of the passive voice. That's all I got. ~ HAL333 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Hi @HAL333: I think I have made all the changes in these edits. Please review and let me know if anything else is required. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 18:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Resolved comments from Tim riley talk 17:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

;Comments The nominator was kind enough to invite me to comment. I'll do so in detail (if any) after a careful read-through, but from a swift gallop through just now I see a hole in the "University of Nebraska" row, where words have, I think, been accidentally deleted. More anon. Tim riley talk 18:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Thanks! I have fixed the "University of Nebraska" row in this edit. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC) You may regret asking for my comments. Two general points stand out. First you are inconsistent with definite and indefinite articles. In a list of this sort, as opposed to a piece of prose, it would probably be OK to omit the article in e.g. "Evangeline Booth of Salvation Army. It premiered in New York on fiftieth anniversary of Salvation Army", or "on joint request of" if you omitted definite articles consistently, but you don't – we have, e.g. "the Smithsonian Institution" It would be best, I think, to include definite and indefinite articles whenever normal prose usage would require them. The second point is the curious choice of prepositions in connection with "request". You start off in normal English with "Sousa composed this march at the request of a California based drill team" – "at the request of…" is what one would expect to see, but thereafter we have "upon the request of", "upon request of", "on joint request from" and "upon request by", none of which are normal English usage. My recommendation is to change all these to "at the request of". I have picked out the ones I spotted, but there may possibly be some I have missed. Detailed comments: Some of his most famous marches include – Either "Some of his most famous marches are" or "His most famous marches include" A British band journalist – what is a band journalist? And does the nationality matter here? He composed marches for several American universities, including the universities of Minnesota Illinois (now known as University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) … and the Pennsylvania Military College (now known as Widener University) – I don't think the modern titles of these institutions merit a mention in the lead: the blue link from the old name here to the relevant article will suffice, I think. Sousa composed this march upon the suggestion of fellow composer Simon Hassle. – Perhaps "at the request of" the victory of Christendom over the Turks in 1877 – what victory would that have been? If it means the Russo-Turkish War the victory was in 1878. the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta of the same name – G&S buffs would prefer the term "comic opera" to "operetta". the twenty-fourth triennial Conclave – it is fairly general practice to use digits for numbers over 10, and would save space here. Sousa composed this march upon the request of the students – Perhaps "at the request of" Egyptian trumpets were used in its composition – what are Egyptian trumpets and how do they differ from non-Egyptian ones? The National League of Musicians of United States – missing a definite article? Sousa initially composed this march as an operetta – I don't see how a march could have ever been a whole operetta. Do you mean "for" one? on his arrival to the United States – one arrives at or in, but not to, surely? Sousa considered this march an echo of the Spanish-American war, and it first appeared as an operetta in 1899. – "in" an operetta? upon the suggestion of George Reid, the High Commissioner for Australia. – Perhaps "at the request of" Sousa's operetta "All American" had been transformed to this march, with many passages, which were repetitive were removed. – This is not English. "The Lamb's March" was composed and dedicated to Lams Club of New York. – "Lams"? "The Pathfinder of Panama" was composed upon the request from Walter Anthony – Perhaps "at the request of" Sousa composed "Boy Scouts of America" upon request of Charles D. Hart, – Perhaps "at the request of" upon joint request from Secretary of Treasury William McAdoo and Liberty Loan Director Charles Schweppe. – Perhaps "at the request of" Other titles for this march were "Boys in the navy blue" and "Great lakes" – not capitalised consistently with other titles in the list. and is the official march of U.S. Army. – missing a definite article upon request of Pennsylvania civic committee – Perhaps "at the request of" Wisconsin's contribution into war efforts. – "contribution into" looks odd, and "contribution to" would be the normal usage. upon request of Robert D. Heinl, chief of Defense Department of Patriotic services. It premiered in March 1918. – Missing a definite article, and "It premiered" looks odd. Used as a verb "premiere" is usually transitive in my experience, but perhaps this is a case of WP:ENGVAR. upon request from representatives of American relief Legion during World War I. – "upon request from" and odd-looking capitalisation. on request of the publisher and upon request of student body from U.S. Naval Academy. T. R. Wirth suggested title "Ex Scienta Tridens" – a lot of missing definite articles. upon request from Colonel Wade H. Hayes. – Perhaps "at the request of" Upon receiving honorary doctorate from Pennsylvania Military College. – Missing definite article in Chester, Sousa composed "The Dauntless Battalion" to honor the cadets. It was originally titled "Pennsylvania Military College March", but upon its publication, title was changed to "The Dauntless Battalion" – Missing definite article was composed and dedicate to Thomas E. Mitten – presumably this should be "dedicated"? composed on request of Sousa's nephew, and was dedicated to Almas Temple and Imperial council. – Missing definite article, and odd capitalisation. Upon receiving honorary doctorate from Marquette University, "Marquette University March" was composed as an expression of appreciation to the university. – Dangling participle: you mean Sousa got the degree, but your prose says the march did. discovered among his papers in 1965. – I'd make "his" "Sousa's" here. No other mention of him in this row. Manuscript of this march was found with Sousa's documents in 1965. – Missing definite article for one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of American independence – Missing definite article on request of International Magna Carta day Association. – Missing definite article upon request of University of Minnesota football team. – Perhaps "at the request of", and missing a definite article composed by the request of Colonel Osmun Latrobe – Perhaps "at the request of" upon request of J. F. Zimmerman, President of University of New Mexico. – Perhaps "at the request of" and Missing definite article Student band from Elementary school in Los Angeles inspired Sousa to compose "Prince Charming". It was dedicated to band's organizer – Missing definite articles composed this march for University of Nebraska upon its Director's request. – Missing definite article and Perhaps "at the request of" he considered its band the finest among other colleges – this doesn't make sense. You need to omit the "other" or replace it with "all". directors of Ibero-American-exposition held at Sevilla, Spain. – Missing definite article. And as our EnWikipedia article calls the city Seville we might use the English form here, perhaps. Two different sets of marched were composed, but one march from the set has been lost. – I think "marched" should be "marches" "The Royal Welch Fusiliers" were two marches … It is the only march written by Sousa for a British Army regiment. The two versions have the same title, and are referred as Number 1 and 2. – this needs attention: we go from plural to singular and back again. composed on request of French government – Missing definite article Evangeline Booth of Salvation Army. It premiered in New York on fiftieth anniversary of Salvation Army. – Missing definite article but the college was provided completely different march. – missing words here, perhaps "with a" He composed "A Century of Progress", but passed away few months before the anniversary. – He did not pass away, pass over or pass out: he died. Apologies for such a long list of quibbles, but you did ask! Tim riley talk 12:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC) Hi @Tim riley: Firstly, I definitely do not regret asking you for comments. I made many changes as suggested in these edits, and found your comments really helpful. Indeed I did make some mistakes, but it was really kind of you to help me out. Please review the changes and let me know if anything else is required, or if I missed something major. Thanks again! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The point about the 1877 Christian-V-Turk war needs addressing (I think just changing the date to 1878 will do) but that apart I am happy with the article as it now stands and am happy to support promotion to FL. I don't often dabble in FLC, so have refreshed my memory of the criteria, and I think this article meets them. Tim riley talk 17:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I addressed the issue in this edit. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Smerus

This looks and reads fine and I would support FL. There is one thing which may be worthy of explanation in a note, if not in the text. You mention that "Review" was his first published march, and that it has the opus number 5. The reader (or anyway this reader) immediately queries, what were opp. 1-4? Were they also marches, which have been lost? Were they a different musical genre? Or do we just not know? A little clarification, even if the answer is that we don't know, would be good. You might also be explicit (if it is indeed the case, as it appears to be) that this is his only work with an opus number (there are no opus numbers at all in the List of compositions by John Philip Sousa). Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Smerus: Well, I have removed the mention of Opus number 5 from the list as it may seem a bit confusing. I think opp. 1-4 were probably not known, but the source states that "It was called Opus 5 and was dedicated to Colonel William G. Moore" Nevertheless, I have rephrased it. Thanks for your support! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's the simplest answer in the circumstances! I definitely support the article for FL.--Smerus (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC) [18].

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2013

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi once again everyone. With 70 of these lists successfully promoted to FL, here's the next in the series. In this particular year, a song broke a record which had stood for nearly 65 years for the longest-running number one in the history of Billboard's country song charts....even though it was being played so little on country music radio that it didn't appear in the country airplay chart at all. Hmmm, bizarre...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support I tried, but you have this down to a tee. ~ HAL333 19:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I would revise this part, a remix featuring a guest appearance by the rapper Nelly, to something like this, a remix featuring rapper Nelly, as the current wording seems unnecessarily wordy to me.
• I would link country radio since there is a separate article for that. That article is not in the best shape, but I still think is useful link (and hopefully, that article will be improved upon one day as I do find the discourse around country radio to be fascinating).
• I have a question about this part, an emerging sub-genre. I have also see it as "subgenre" without the hyphenated. Is it common to hyphenate this word? To be clear, I am not saying this is wrong, but it is not how I normally see this word represented.
• This is not required for the FLC, but I would encourage you to archive all the citations as this will save you a big headache later.

Wonderful job with this list as always. I have super minor notes, and once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Thank you for your hard work and dedication to these lists. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - all done apart from the archiving. I am sure there is a relatively quick and easy way to do that but I can't remember what it is, can you advise? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• You can easily archive all the citations on a single page with the IABot. Thank you for addressing everything. I support the list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your support. You have been kind enough in the past to do source reviews of some of my noms, wondered if you might have the time to give this one the quick once over? Thanks in advance if you do :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• I do not see any major issues with the citations' formatting. I know some editors have differing opinions on this (and that is perfectly okay), but I appreciate how items are linked in each individual citation as I find that to be the most helpful.
• I would recommend that you link the writers in the citations if they have a Wikipedia article. So I would link James C. McKinley Jr., Joel Whitburn, and Jody Rosen. Those articles may not be in the best shape, but I still think links would be helpful. I am not sure if it is completely required for a FLC, but I wait to support until you do that. This is a very easy fix so it should hopefully not be too much of an issue.
• All the sources are reliable and appropriate for a featured list. I would encourage you to archive your sources to avoid any future headaches, but that is not a requirement right now.
• I did a spot check and the information appears to be supported by the citations.

I have just one quick request and I will pass this source review. Wonderful job as always with these. Your work on all of these lists is nothing short of incredible. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - done. And your comments are very kind -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the very prompt response. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Other reviews

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Not a big deal, but I do this for my own lists so I'll do it for yours: when I have a question on sorting, I try for consistency with the DEFAULTSORT listed in the edit screen at the end of the relevant articles. Eli Young Band has {{DEFAULTSORT:Eli Young Band}}, and The Only Way I Know has {{DEFAULTSORT:Only Way I Know}}. You're sorting these under Y and T. Just a thought.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and all the song 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 article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine, and they add a lot to the list.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Many thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC) [19].

---

1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea

Nominator(s): --Ruling party (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated the list 1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea. It shows the composition of the communist leadership for a given period. I'm planning to nominate the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th as well.

I've also tried to give short historical summaries of the given period in question; what the communist leadership did and of course the steady accumulation of power by Kim Il-sung and the Kim family. Hopefully the eighth lists will be able to give the common folk a basic understanding of how Kim Il-sung became the Supreme Leader and how the country became the oxymoronic communist monarchy.

I'm happy to get any comments. --Ruling party (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Surprised this has been open for so long with no comments at all, so I will give it a go........ Think the words " in this case" in para 1 are redundant  Done "It convened meetings, known as "Plenary Session of the [term] Central Committee"" - surely they were all ""Plenary Session of the 1st Central Committee", as the article only covers the 1st CC.......?  Done "eighth plenary sessions were convened in 1947" - typo on the first word  Done Write the name of the WPNK in full the first time you use it (OK to show the abbreviation in brackets afterwards and then use that instead of the full name from then on  Done "The partisans, comprised soldiers" => "The partisans, comprising soldiers"  Done "While the Yanan faction, Korean revolutionaries based in China, had most representation on the committee." - this is not a complete sentence  Done "as early as 1947 [...] overhead how" - is it meant to say "overheard"?  Done "The criticism of O Ki-sop and the attacks on the indigenous North Korean communist movement, that had remained active in Korea during Japanese colonialism, was supported" - should say "were supported" as it's a plural subject  Done Plenary sessions table - no need for a full stop after "N items" in each row (or after the bullet points, or the words "not made public")  Done Personally I am not keen on hidden content, I think it should just be displayed normally The reason is to make the table more "even". Some columns have no offices and some have. I don't like the look of tables that have gigantic rows and smalls rows without any consistency. It also works well for sortability. I originally used it on the 19th CPC Central Committee list because of page constraint but I ended up liking it so much that I've kept on using it. "scholars Scalapino and Lee notes that" - should be "note that" given that the subject is plural  Done That's what I got on a first pass....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for commenting. --Ruling party (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - the hidden content thing isn't that big a deal I guess -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I used to consider myself one of the foremost experts on North Korean politics and the WP(N)K. But that, of course, was before Ruling party came along! This list is a fantastic work. The information itself is straightforward and easily available. The sources are good and familiar to me; I think both I and Ruling party count ourselves among fans of professor Dae-Sook Suh. What Ruling party has excelled at here is not that comparatively easy task of sourcing but instead designing this list so as to include many relevant data and display them in an appealing yet usable way. I've no complains about the actual list contents and, to reiterate, the design choices are excellent. I, too, am not a huge fan of collapsed content but this might just be one of those exceptions listed at MOS:DONTHIDE and is well reasoned for above. The only, and minor, complaints I can launch are about the citation style of the two references: Ⅲ. 북조선임시인민위원회 조직과 역할 and Korean Affairs Report.

Ⅲ. 북조선임시인민위원회 조직과 역할 should use |script-title=ko:Ⅲ. 북조선임시인민위원회 조직과 역할 and optionally |language=ko.

Korean Affairs Report is a serial work so please use something like {{cite journal}} that makes the title italic and please include the number. Additionally use an identifier of some sort. You are also citing some pages, so identify those. You can see how I've used this work e.g. here.

You could also cite these two sources in the similar short footnote style as the rest (though I myself sometimes oscillate between all short footnotes and short footnotes for just the sources I cite multiple times at different locations).

Lastly, on a tangential note, I like finding articles for redlinked names from other language Wikipedias and use {{ill}}. You can consider it, though I also think it would make your list a bit less elegant and clear. So, instead I recommend that you become a biographer as well and start writing articles for some of the more interesting early WPK figures! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thanks for the kind words!

1. I've used the cite journal template. Good?
2. Standardised as suggested! OK?
3. I tried the tl template, but only one of the red links were translated into Korean. I'll try to write more biographical articles in the future! :) --Ruling party (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Approved? :) --Ruling party (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry, Ruling party! I forgot. After having reviewed the Featured List Criteria, I'm going to support it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): while the tables have column scopes, they are missing a caption and rowscopes, and have column headers in the middle of the table.

•  Done Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
•  Done For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1st Plenary Session` it should be `!scope="row"| 1st Plenary Session`. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`; that said you seem to be trying to manually recreate this look in the members table with background colors.
•  Done Column headers not at the top of tables like "References" are contraindicated as screen reading software trips on them, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. Please remove; for references one way to do it is to put the reference in the first cell of the header or else in text before, though with 6 references in the members table you might want to just make a reference column and cite each row to the right reference.

--PresN 14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: I did two of them, and the third too.... but it looks absolutely awful. THe problem with the third examples is that those columns are in the way of sorting columns. THe intention of this column is to be at the bottom unsortable. Making another column does not seems like the solution. For instance, am I supposed to list one source 383 times in the list 3rd Supreme People's Assembly? I would also add that adding for instance 9 refs in one column on the list 8th National Assembly of Laos (if I were to follow you're advice) would make the list very unforgiving.

The example you refer to don't mention columns at the bottom of the table, just middle. I think you are wrong here. I would very much like to revert back to the original way of referencing.. --Ruling party (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

1.  Done You put 'scope="col"' instead of 'scope="row"' for the row tag, and you put it on two different cells in each row. It should just be in one; presumably the romanized name column since it's first.
2.  Done The caption is supposed to be a title of the table, not "References". They're not the "references" tables. I recommend just doing Plenary sessions and Members, and probably putting them in the {{sronly}} template like I mentioned.
3.  Done I didn't mean you should put the reference in the caption, I meant you might put it in the header like "Plenum^[18]". And while I didn't look too closely at the time since I was trying to do Access reviews for 45 lists at once, I really don't think it's appropriate to have 6 wildly different references as "general references" for a 43-row table. They should be attached to what they're actually being used for, unless you're saying that all 6 are used for every single row- and even then, it'd be better to attach them to the column(s) that they're sourcing. It's absolutely not clear right now, as a reader, which source of 6 to look at to verify that Kim Tu-bong was a Yanan, or was reelected to the 2nd committee.
4. I've replied below When I did this Access Review pass, I only looked at a few specific things; looking at this list again, while I don't want to do a full review, I see a few more issues related to accessibility: the collapsed text and the garish colors. The collapsed text in the tables is hiding information from the reader, and it's not clear why- none of them are that long, and the tables aren't that wide. They should just be out and visible. The garish colors are the almost neon green and orange in the 2nd CC column- I don't actually know if they violate any access requirements, though I don't think they do, but they are very bright and stand out way more than the surrounding pastel colors for no clear reason. --PresN 22:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Obviously you know way more about Wikipedia than I do :) I've fixed the things you mentioned. I'm still against referencing each column individually—it looks ugly. I've added an explainer on each table ref to explain what it references.

As for collapsed table—they do two things; it gives me space to showcase the level of government and it tidies up the table. See 19th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party#Members. It also gives readers the ability to sort each office by where in the government it is (and not alphabetical, which would not make any sense to do). I'm still working on filling the tables. It seems to be extremely hard, but there has to be a source out there. Maybe I have to find a book from the 1940s to get an answer :P

garish? I had to look that word up in the dictionary. I myself have no problem seeing the text, but if you have I'll change it. Would the colour BFFF00 be any better? Do you have a colour suggestion?

Thanks for taking you're time to review this list. I am very grateful! --Ruling party (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@PresN:  ?? --Ruling party (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest swapping the GreenYellow to LightGreen and the Died one to LightPink, that way their all "light" pastel colors; I don't think bright lime green is better, no. --PresN 19:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Done. Anything else? --Ruling party (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, those colors are less jarring. I still think that the collapsed text should be uncollapsed (I agree with having a heading to allow sortability), but I'll leave that to the other reviewers to decide. --PresN 19:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Done I agree that we should not be auto-collapsing by default, that's contrary to MOS and the amount of information being collapsed is not overwhelmingly large. Done "the 1st Organisation Committee" this is overlinked and heads to the generic article, should a specific (red-linked if need be) article be linked instead? Done "twelve plenary sessions.[6] Of those twelve, eight" merge, ie. twelve plenary sessions, of which eight..." Done "and elected .. and elected" repetitive run-on. Done "d elected the WPNK Chairman and two vice chairs.[9] Kim Tu-bong was elected as Chairman while Kim Il-sung and Chu Yong-ha were elected vice chairmen.[9] " merge this, you're effectively saying the same thing twice. Done "and appointed the ..." again, too many run-ons. Done (think so at least) "1947 [...] overheard" see MOS:ELLIPSIS. Done "Start–End" column just has a single date, is it assumed to be one day long each time? In which case just put date. Done Sortable tables, linked items should be linked every time as it's not certain the linked item will appear first after a re-sort. Done Start–End column doesn't sort properly. Done Hangul col heading needs a footnote to explain what it means. Comment Do we have a consensus on the red link issue yet, more than half of the main table comprises red-linked subjects. Only one of the red links had an article in another language. I feel it would be waste to interlink to other WPs and I think it would make the list a bit more messy. Done "p. 565–6 " should be pp. and be consistent with numbers of digits used at either end of the page range. Done See ref 3 too, and check al page ranges for the number of digits issue. That's all I have on a quick run. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Great comments. I'll respond to them by the end of the weekend. --Ruling party (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for using you're spare time to review the list! --Ruling party (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Everything good? --Ruling party (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [20]

Formatting

• Please mark ref 22 as in Korean, with "|language=Korean"
• For 22 as well, the English translation of the title should be under the parameter "|trans-title=" — not just put after the Korean title
• Ah ha, now here's a nitpick, in ref 22 you have "1946–48" but the page ranges only have a single digit for ranges
• Why no link for University of California Press, but for the others?

Reliability

• First rate, no issues here

Verifiability

• To increase verifiability, I would suggest adding an OCLC number (with "|oclc=") to Paik (found here).
• That seems to be it; good work. Aza24 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: Done :) --Ruling party (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank for your attentiveness! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

With the recent discussion at WT:FLC, I'll add my comments to help bring this nomination closer to consensus.

• Done The infobox colors are somewhat close for accessibility – per MOS:COLOR, contrast should meet WCAG's AA level and preferably AAA level. According to the tool I used (link), the yellow font and red background meet the former but not the latter. I'm not too worried about it, but if you get some time, it might be worth changing the colors to increase the contrast. (I realize there are other North Korea, USSR, etc. templates that probably use the same color scheme due to its use in communist flags, so use your judgement here.)
• Done No need for quotes around "Plenary Session of the 1st Central Committee" or "Enlarged Plenary Session" in lead
  • Done Also, Plenary Session of the 1st Central Committee → Plenary Sessions of the 1st Central Committee and Enlarged Plenary Session → Enlarged Plenary Sessions
• Done For two-digit numbers in lead, pick either digits (i.e., 22) or words (i.e., twenty-two) and stick with that format
• Done (...) → [...]
• Done "While the Yanan faction, formed by Korean revolutionaries based in China during Japanese rule, had the most representation on the committee." – sentence fragment
• Done North O Ki-sop was accused → North, O Ki-sop, was accused
• Done Table headings already use bold font, so remove the manual bold font (''' symbol) to prevent double bolding
• Done As people have pointed out before, there is no need to collapse text in tables. This type of formatting is discouraged per MOS:COLLAPSE.
• Done Noter → Notes

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Thanks for taking you're time! :) I'll the problems shortly. --Ruling party (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: OK? :) --Ruling party (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Support – can't wait to see more of these lists at FLC! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) --Ruling party (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC) [21].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Slovakia

Nominator(s): Tone 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Slovakia has 7 WHS and 14 sites on the tentative list. The list for Hungary is seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. The style is standard. I am now using a slightly longer version of the intro which should help with the often-seen concern that the intro was short. The style follows the previously promoted FLs. Tone 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "Slovak Republic ratified" => "The Slovak Republic ratified" "Original nomination listed caves" => "The original nomination listed the caves" "Burgher's houses" => "Burghers' houses" (the houses (presumably) belonged to multiple burghers, not just one "This site comprises undisturbed examples of temperate forests that demonstrates" => "This site comprises undisturbed examples of temperate forests that demonstrate" (the subject of the verb is the plural word "examples") "between the 16th to the 18th centuries" => "between the 16th and 18th centuries" "located at the confluence of Danube and Váh rivers" => "located at the confluence of the Danube and Váh rivers" "a fortification system has been developed around the area through centuries" => "a fortification system has been developed around the area over the centuries" "The geyser in Herlany was artificially activated in the 1870s during the drilling a well" => "The geyser in Herlany was artificially activated in the 1870s during the drilling of a well" "Mikulčice was an important fortified settlement of the Slavonic state Great Moravia" => "Mikulčice was an important fortified settlement of the Slavonic state of Great Moravia" "It was located in the area that now stretches the borders of Slovakia and Czechia" => "It was located in the area that now stretches across the borders of Slovakia and Czechia" "The Church of St. Margaret dates to the 9th century and has seen renovations in the 13th and 16th centuries" => "The Church of St. Margaret dates to the 9th century and underwent renovations in the 13th and 16th centuries" (a church does not have eyes so can't see something) "the addition of reserves Udava and Kyjovský prales" - don't understand this bit at all. Is "prales" part of the name of the second place? It certainly isn't an English word...... Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thanks! --Tone 19:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Formatting

• consistent all around

Reliability

• uses UNESCO sources, which is standard with UNESCO lists and certainly reliable

Verifiability

• have checked a couple, all checks out from what I saw. Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review–pass

All images have appropriate free licenses. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Some too-similar wording in my spot checks: "Renaissance palaces, 16th-century churches, elegant squares, and castles", "of Late Cretaceous and early Tertiary subtropical and tropical climatic conditions, as well as"; "gradually widened into the shape of a lens and in its largest span"
  • The latter is also an incomplete phrase since the source is saying that's where a church is. That's all I've got! Reywas92^Talk 01:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Reywas92: I did some rephrasing, please have a look. --Tone 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The first one was unchanged, once that's fixed support Reywas92^Talk 18:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I changed somewhat. --Tone 18:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "While the mining activities in the area already took place" -> "While mining activities in the area took place".
• "including gold and silver" these are not polymetallic ores.
  • Changed to "containing"
• "the first Mining and Forestry Academy in Europe was founded here" if this is a notable establishment, why don't we have Mining and Forestry Academy?
  • I don't know :)
• Vlkolinec lost its diacritic in the description.
• "the caves Domica..." caves would normally flow better at the end of the list of names.
• "Four reserves in Slovakia are listed, Stužica – Bukovské vrchy, Rožok, Vihorlat, and Havešová.[12]" where are they noted in ref 12?
  • The complete list is on the "Maps" tab of the website, not sure if I should link separately.
• "the Carpathian area" you've linked Carpathian twice (at least) so far, be consistent and do it here too.
• "at the junction of three different faiths" feels like a guidebook.
  • Changed.
• "feudal churches" what's a feudal church?
  • Honestly, no idea. But the reference say so. Changed simply to churches.
• "for centuries" how many? This is an encyclopedia, not a guidebook.
  • Good point. Since prehistoric times, as the ref says.
• "well preserved traditional" hyphenate well-preserved but you said "preserve traditional" earlier in the same sentence so it's jarringly repetitive.
  • Removed well-preserved, reads better.
• "Original Meadow - Pasture Sites" en-dash
• "Limes Romanus - The Roman" ditto.
• "road getting gradually widened into" -> "road gradually widening into"
• "The Tatras are" link.
  • I alread link Tatra Mountains in the property name.
• "Europe - extension" en-dash.
• "centuries. [29][30]" no space before refs.
• Check refs for spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes (e.g. ref 18, 20, 21, 22 and 31).
• Not sure why Category:Eastern Europe is a cat here, far too general.
  • Removed.

That's it for me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• • @The Rambling Man: Done, thank you! --Tone 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I can't find any faults --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.