Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2024

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

1924 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Trying this out! This is a list about the medals earned by nations that competed at the 1924 Summer Olympics (and medals that aren't official anymore)! Waiting for some comments, and hope I can address them :P Arconning (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The template that you are using for the table has a parameter to add the caption. If that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "entities that did not participate in the 2020 Summer Olympics." - Fix the year. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Done with your comments. Arconning (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

...continuing

• "17 sports across 23 different disciplines" - For my own knowledge, what's an example of a sport that spans multiple disciplines?
• " 27 nations received at least one medal," - countries don't get the medal, their citizens do. See 1936 Summer Olympics medal table for how to rephrase this.
• Art competitions section: A bit weird to start a new section with "Additionally,". Try "The 1924 Olympics also included art competitions...".
• "Though medals in art competitions are no longer recognized by the IOC as part of the total medal count" - Don't start the sentence with "Though". Also, if you could give information on which other Games had these art competitions, it would be nice.
• "In architecture, no gold medal was awarded while the silver was awarded to pair Alfréd Hajós, who became one of only two Olympians ever to have won medals in both sport (swimming) and art Olympic competitions, and Dezső Lauber of Hungary." - This is quite a complex sentence. Maybe you can mover the additional clause about Hajos' two medals to a new sentence.
• "The medal count on the IOC website also includes medals from art competitions. The tables have been separated here."
• footnote b isn't a full sentence and doesn't need a full stop."
• footnote c: "This event is no longer recognized by the IOC as part of the total medal count."
• "winning the men's 1500 metres event at the 1952 Summer Olympics" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 Done for most of the comments. For the first comment, an example of a sport that spans multiple disciplines is aquatics which spans over diving, swimming, and water polo at these Games. For the second comment, I've replaced most of the instances besides the nations that earned their first gold/any medal, which I'm basing off 2020 Summer Olympics medal table, let me know if you have a problem with this one. Let me know if you have more comments. Arconning (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about this definition of disciplines. The definitions of "sport" and "discipline" were vice-versa in my mind. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Czechoslovakia won their nation's" - this doesn't really work grammatically, as it reads like Czechoslovakia owned itself. "The team from Czechoslovakia won their nation's" would work, though. Same for the following sentence.
• "Is there any need to show the key as "Host nation (France)", given that the only entry in the table with this colour/symbol is France? I would think just showing the key as "Host nation" would be fine (relates to both tables)
• Image caption: the word "pictured" in "Paavo Nurmi of Finland (pictured) won" is pretty redundant, as he's the only person in the photo so obviously he is the one pictured.
• "World map showing the medal achievements of each country during the 1924 Summer Olympics." - this doesn't need a full stop
• "Image caption: "Hajós at the 1896 Summer Olympics, where he" - show his full name
• "painting, and sculpturing" - "sculpturing" is a pretty obscure word (indeed I had to double check that it was definitely a real word). I think "sculpture" would be better (here and further on in the section)
• "architecture, literature, music, painting, and sculpturing [...] was a medal eligible event" - as the subject of the sentence is five distinct things, the verb should be plural. Also there should be a hyphen in "medal-eligible"
• "a medal eligible event to competitors " - the words "to competitors" are redundant as obviously only competitors were eligible for medals
• "was awarded to pair Alfréd Hajós and Dezső Lauber of Hungary" => "was awarded to the pair of Alfréd Hajós and Dezső Lauber of Hungary"
• "the jury could not make a consensus to award medals for any of the competitors" => "the jury could not reach a consensus to award medals for any of the competitors"
• Why does Greece have "(GRE)" in brackets in the second table? No other country has this.
• Note c: "though is credited as a French competitor" => "but is credited as a French competitor"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude For the first comment, I reworded the first sentence with "Czechoslovakia's team won their nation's..." if that's okay with you, I've worded accordingly for the other sentences. For the second comment, FLs of medal tables include that so I included it to retain consistency. For the rest of the comments, I believe I'm done :) Arconning (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - personally I can't see the point of "Host nation (France)" in the key but I won't quibble over it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 4 – Can we do better than olympicgameswinners.com?
• Ref 7 – Downcase to "Inside the Games"
• Ref 9 – Add Associated Press as the agency
• Ref 13 – When I visit the link it shows a publish date of February 26, 2024. Does it list the 27th for you, or was this a typo?
• Ref 27 – I was hesitant, but they seem reliable enough for the information being verified.
• Ref 26 – Well this confuses me. It looks like this has a date of 1896 to it, but that's clearly not correct given it speaks about 1924 in there.
• Ref 22 – Is that a date of 22 October 2021 there? It's hard to tell with the date stuff on the Olympics website.
• Ref 30 – There's a date of 26 July 1952, but I don't know if that's meant to be the publish date, but I feel like it's not. The date listed matches up with the final of Athletics at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's 1500 metres.

Great stuff. Please ping me when the issues above have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh For ref 4, most of the sources list down art competitions as part of the medal count for France and Finland, so this was the best source I could find that's reliable enough, and for the medalists I've replaced the source. For ref 13, it shows as 27 for me, probably moves to the users timezone (let me know if I have to replace this). For ref 26, it probably shows when Hajos' swimming event was held. For ref 30, same with the last comment, when event was held. For the rest, I'm done! Hope this works. Arconning (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Arconning: I won't ask you to change the date if it adjusts based on timezone, I just wanted to verify that that was the case. What makes Olympic Games Winners a reliable source? It doesn't appear widely used a source. Perhaps you can cobble together a couple of different sources to replace the Olympic Games Winners source? If you can't you can't, but I think some would challenge the reliability of the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I amazingly found another source, it has now been replaced. Though the site places France second per the total medal count, hope this isn't a problem regarding this article uses golds first. Arconning (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [2].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Sudan

Nominator(s): Tone 06:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sudan has three WHS and 15 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The list for Tunisia has just been promoted, the list for Botswana (where I am the co-nominator) is seeing some support already so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 06:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• "which existed over a millennium" - Add some rough dates here.
• "contains the Meidob volcanic field (satellite image pictured), the Jebel Rahib hills, "
• "The park significant from the natural point of view because" to "The park is biologically significant because"
• "The area is a desert and semi desert with sand dunes." Needs fixing depending on what you want to say.
• " seat of medieval Christian bishops"
• "rededicated to Aten under Akhenaten." to "rededicated to Aten, during the rule of Akhenaten."
• "left by the pilgrims through the centuries."
• Bit weird to have both "Wadi Hower National Park - Gala Abou Ahmed (mixed natural and cultural site)" and "Wadi Hower National Park". Would need an explanation. Also, the my second point applies here too since the text is quite similar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! As for the two Wadi Hower listings, it appears that they updated the nomination but did not remove the old one (which would be a reasonable thing to do). I've seen it before in some cases, but it is rare. Since technically these are two distinct nominations, although overlapping, I would leave it as it is. Maybe I'll add a note on the second one. Tone 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • "deserts and semi deserts with sand dunes" - Can you write this in a different way? I don't understand what point you are trying to make there, otherwise I would have suggested different wording. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    I tried to rewrite. This was referring to different types of ecosystems. Tone 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The first site in Sudan was listed in 2003, this was Jebel Barkal and the associated sites." - I think "The first site to be listed in Sudan was Jebel Barkal and the associated sites in 2003." would work better
• "which existed over a millennium" => "which existed for over a millennium""
• "and Middle East" => "and the Middle East"
• "in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE" => "in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE"
• "It was dedicated to archangel Raphael." => "It was dedicated to the archangel Raphael."
• "between the 6th and 1st millennium BCE" => "between the 6th and 1st millennia BCE"
• Plus what MPGuy said :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed all, thanks! Tone 08:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Image Review by Fritzmann

• File:Gebel Barkal.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under GNU Free.
• File:Sudan Meroe Pyramids 30sep2005 10.jpg is a valid Flickr import, checked by an admin as having the proper license.
• File:Suakin,el-Geyf mosque.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under CC 3.0.
• File:Kerma city.JPG is a credible own-work, properly licensed under GNU Free.
• File:Church of the Granite Columns 2007-10-03 01.jpg has a 404 link, but another image uploaded in the same batch was checked and confirmed to be properly licensed as CC2.0, and the author's other works are similarly licensed.
• N Strangely, File:Malha Wells, Sudan by Planet Labs.jpg appears to have been removed from its original gallery. However, all other images on the site are licensed as CC-BY-NC, which is not usable on Wikipedia. It looks like there are a lot of these images on Commons, so this may be a bigger problem than just this article. Will need a replacement for this image.
• ? File:نهر الدندر من الطائرة.JPG is properly licensed, but it is not a particularly good image. Are there any possible images of the park not on Commons that could be used instead?
• File:Africa Mt Dair.jpg is a public domain NASA image
• File:Sudan Jebel Marra Deriba Lakes edited.jpg has some minor license format issues but nothing that necessitates exclusion
• File:Kerma-Deffufa.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under GNU Free.
• File:Soleb1.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under CC 4.0.
• File:Banganarti 2013 .jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under CC 4.0.

Just two images with an issue, please ping when you have seen and responded. Thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. As for the first one, I suppose it is better to remove it altogether since I cannot find a better image on Commons that does not have that issue. File:Nile Map Sudan.png is possible but I am trying to avoid maps. As for the second one, the other relevant image is File:الدندر.jpg, which is equally non-ideal. I don't mind removing them both since a FL would ideally have good images. What do you think? Tone 15:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would at least remove the first image; if there aren't any alternatives for the second I think it is OK to leave. Once the first is removed I am happy to support on images. Fritzmann (message me) 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Tone 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

AK

• "Sudan accepted the convention" I'd use "ratified" instead.
• "Jebel Barkal and the associated sites" to "Jebel Barkal and its associated sites"?
• "The sites of...in 2016." should be either "The sites of Meroë and Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island Marine National Park were listed in 2011 and 2016, respectively." or "The site of Meroë was listed in 2011 and Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island Marine National Park in 2016."
• "The latter is a natural site" isn't "latter" just for lists of two objects?
• "The archaeological area in" to "This archaeological area in"?
• "Jebel Barkal...sacred mountain" to "Jebel Barkal, which has the Temple of Amun at its foot, was considered a sacred mountain."
• "Monuments include temples" to "Monuments in the area include temples"?
• "Some aspects of burial practices" You don't mention any funerary practices earlier, so this doesn't really fit well. I'd go with something like "The pyramids and burial chambers of the site are an 'outstanding example of funerary architecture'. Some aspects of this funerary tradition remained in use until the 6th century".
• "ruled Egypt Egypt" typo.
• "The park has...2004." to "The park was previously listed on the tentative list in 2004."? Also, if it was already on the tenative list, why did they have to relist it?
• That's all I have. AryKun (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! I fixed the ones that I think fit, some of them I think are fine as they are. Funerary practices refer to tombs that are mentioned in the previous sentence. The two natural reserves are a single WH site, with two components, thus singular. The 2004 thing just means that they didn't do the cleanup of the list, but we cannot do much here, both are still on the list :) Tone 09:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review:
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Source review passed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [3].

---

List of presidents of Burundi

Nominator(s): MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Something from a different continent this time. I’ve modelled it on similar heads of state FLs. I’ve improved the lead and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. This is for the Developing Countries WikiContest. I encourage reviewers to join soon, if it seems interesting (since July 15 is the last date that they are accepting new signups). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Staraction

• "The first constitution to specify the powers and duties of the president was the constitution of 1974 adopted in 1976." --> "The first constitution to specify the powers and duties of the president was the constitution of 1974, which was adopted in 1976."
• "The constitution, written by Micombero, affirmed his position as the first president of Burundi." --> "Written by Micombero, the consistution affirmed his position as the first president of Burundi"; also include some more details on what this affirmation meant, perhaps? What powers did it grant him (back then)?
• "The powers of the president derive from the 2005 constitution implemented as a result of the 2000 Arusha Accords after the Burundian Civil War." --> "Currently, the powers of the president derive from the [...]"
• Include more Wikilinks for clarity - ie. Supreme Court, provincial governors, etc.
• See also section has an indented bullet - is this intentional?
• I might be mistaken but I believe source [1] (the Xinhua article) does not verify the claim in the article that "Nkurunziza was elected for a third term, as the Constitutional Court considered that first, indirectly elected term, did not count towards the limit". This Al-Jazeera article for the footnote might be a better source, while the Xinhua article can still be used for the infobox. (Personally I wouldn't use Xinhua but I suppose it isn't deprecated)

Thanks for this list @MPGuy2824, it's quite important and I'm excited to see it become featured! Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Powers granted by the 1974 constitution: I was sadly unable to find anything specific about what new powers he got, but this was 8 years after his coup, and it would be reasonable to assume that the constitution (officially) granted him the powers that he was already using until then.
• "Currently" is frowned upon by the MOS. I've added an "As of 2024" at the beginning, and an {{update after}} template at the end of that sentence.
• Fixed the rest. @Staraction: Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good. Support on prose! Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Per MOS:COLOR you can't use colour alone to indicate acting presidents, you will need to use a symbol as well for the benefit of people who cannot discern colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Double dagger added. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

What verifies the information in the table? I went to verify the info, such as the assassinations, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do so in this case (please ping when you respond). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I've now moved the references that were already there in the table to a new column and added a bunch more. Please take another look when you can. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Coat of arms of Burundi.svg and No image.png are public domain images with relevant tags.
• Evariste Ndayishimiye (cropped).jpg is GODL and has an appropriate CC tag.
• Prime Minister Micombero in 1966.png (via Crowning of Ntare V in Burundi.webm), Jean Baptiste Bagaza - 1978.tiff, Melchior Ndadaye.png, Sylvie Kinigi at Bujumbura airport, 1993.jpg, Pierre Buyoya at Chatham House 2013 crop.jpg, Pierre Buyoya at Chatham House 2013 crop.jpg (via Pierre Buyoya at Chatham House 2013.jpg), Domitien Ndayizeye, President of Burundi (2) (cropped).jpg and President Nkurunziza of Burundi (6920275109) (cropped).jpg, have appropriate license tags.
• Pierre Buyoya 1990 cropped.jpg has appropriate CC tags but states that it has not yet been reviewed to confirm that the license is valid. Visit of Sylvestre Ntibantunganya, President of Burundi, to the EC (cropped).jpg and Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg, also have not been reviewed.
• None of the CC licensed images have US tags.

The images all have CC or PD licenses that seem reasonable. Pierre Buyoya 1990 cropped.jpg, Visit of Sylvestre Ntibantunganya, President of Burundi, to the EC (cropped).jpg and Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg need review. simongraham (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Only Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg or its source Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally.jpg need review. simongraham (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Additionally, one president, Pierre Buyoya, served" - no reason for the word "additionally"
• Sorting on the first column doesn't work correctly, you need to use hidden sort templates to make the dashes and the one in brackets sort in the correct place
• "However, Nkurunziza was elected for a third term" - remove "however" and show his full name
• If you are going to link Constitutional Court in the notes, it should be linked in note a, not note d -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: For the sorting, I'm not sure where to place "(3)". For now, I've placed it just under 6, like in the initial sort order of the table. I've fixed the other issues that you've pointed out. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  You've not fixed the last one....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Odd: I was sure that I did it, but maybe I hadn't pressed "Publish". Anyway, looking over the list again, I notice that the phrase is wikilinked in the lead, so I've removed the link from the notes. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Fritzmann

Hello, this is my first foray into FLC; I usually hang around GAN. I will be doing the source review, and because it is my first one I will probably be more thorough than strictly required. Other reviewers and nominator, please feel free to correct any errors I may unknowingly stumble into.

1. Xinhua is the state news source of China, but is considered reliable for non-China topics. However, I don't think this is the best source because it states that the draft constitution will allow for 7 years and up to 2 terms. Is there a more recent source that is based on the finalized constitution?

   You are the second reviewer to look askance at that xinhua ref. I've removed the source completely. The relevant prose is supported by the constitution ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

2. NYT is considered a reliable source. It verifies the date of the establishment of the republic, but from what I can see only infers that Micombrero was President, not that he established the presidency. I don't think it's much of a stretch, but just wanted to point this out.
3. Reference 3 (the 2005 constitution), needs page numbers. I believe the first instance is page 1, and the second is page 5. Further, this source does not support the claim "as of 2024" since it was published in 2005. It could support "as of 2005", but a more recent source would be needed to support "as of 2024".

   Another reviewer had a problem with a previous version of this sentence. I've now rewritten the sentence to incorporate both sets of feedback. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

4. Cambridge University Press is considered reliable. From what I can tell, it adequately supports the article's claim without issues.
5. NYT again. No issues.
6. Africa Spectrum is a peer reviewed journal and I can find no issues with its reliability.
7. Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable in this subject area. Support the note.
8. Include page 20 where this claim is found for ease of verifiability

   Done. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

9. I do not have access to ref 9 and will assume good faith.
10. Does not support election year of 1984, took office date of 1 November, and does not mention UPRONA or Nzambimana.

    Common ref added.

11. Mentions coup year, but not took office date of 3 September. Also does not mention UPRONA or military affiliation, or prime minister Sibomana.

    Common ref added.

12. Supports chronology of events, but FRODEBU and prime minister Kinigi are not present.

    Common ref added.

13. AGF on French foreign language source.
14. I do not have access to reference 14.

    Try accessing via WP:TWL

15. I am not able to find much info on IWACU. Their website also does not list their staff or editorial team, so I am a bit concerned on reliability here.

    I've replaced this ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

16. Ref 16 supports year of 2003, but not date of 30 April. Also does not mention political party.

    Common ref added.

17. Does mention party, but I don't see any mention of the chronology of his presidency.

    Added a ref to support years as president. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

18. AGF on French foreign language source.

Citations for the last paragraph of the lead are likely warranted, despite the straightforwardness of the claims. Please respond above to concerns on sources, thanks in advance for your patience with me! Fritzmann (message me) 14:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the issues. Will ping you after I take a stab at fixing the rest. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I will be travelling and not have access to the wiki starting on Friday, so for promotion purposes I support once all of the above issues have been addressed. Fritzmann (message me) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: It took me some time to find a ref with covered the entire timeline of independent Burundi. It is now linked to in the table caption. A few straggling pieces of information still don't have sources, but the only solution for that is to remove whole columns, and I'm sure to get pushback from list watchers about that. There are now references for a couple of the statements in the last paragraph of the lead. I don't think the remaining statements are as contestable as those two. Please have a look at the list when you can. There is no particular rush. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, thanks for your hard work. Fritzmann (message me) 14:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

To add to the source review above, which MPGuy looks to have largely implemented, I also have some feedback:

• Ref 1 – This New York Times source requires a subscription, please specify that
• Ref 2 – Could use a publisher
• Ref 3 – Add [[United Press International|UPI]] as the agency
• Ref 3 – Use |at=Section B., p. 5 to call out the section and page
• Ref 4 – Perhaps it would make sense to add University of Ottawa
• Ref 8 and 9 – These Washington Post sources requires a subscription, please specify that

Other than that, I'm happy. Good stuff MPGuy!! Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Josh, thanks for the review. I've made all the changes that you've suggested. Implementing some of Fritzmann's suggestions will probably involve replacing some of the refs, so I'd prefer if you indicate your Support/Oppose after those changes are in. I'll ping you here when that is done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I've added refs in response to Fritzman's comments. Feel free to take another look when you can. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Nom's comment: This now has 2 source reviews and a few good faith edits which unfortunately removed some table accessibility features. I'm in discussion with the editor, and will note (for my own reference) that Fritzmann's review was for revision 1234253945 and Josh's review was for revision 1234660604. I will ping both of you once the list meets the FL criteria again and your particular feedback is incorporated or commented on. Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [4].

---

List of eulipotyphlans

Nominator(s): PresN 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright y'all, mammal list #41 and the 6th and final list of Eulipotyphlans: our capstone list for the order! The species lists covered the hedgehogs, moles, shrews, shrews, and more shrews of Eulipotyphla, the 4th-biggest order of Mammalia (behind rats, bats, and monkeys), and this list, like the previous capstone lists, jumps up a level to list out all the genera of the order (and adds the two solenodon species, which are too small to get their own list). This follows on from the formatting of those previous lists, like List of primates, and also like those lists needed some careful structuring of the references to keep the page from getting too long to render. It's all in there though, and ready to review!

With this list, after 5 years we've gotten 15 of the 17 big-enough orders done (10 more have <10 species each), and just have the last two orders to go: Chiroptera (bats) and Rodentia (rodents). Unfortunately, those two have... more than half of all mammal species. Not quite sure how I'm going to tackle those yet! In any case, thanks to all the reviewers who've checked these lists out over the years. --PresN 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

AK

• "exceptions of...all but northern South America" is hard to understand, any way to reword it?
• "between the...of gymnures" to "between the subfamilies Erinaceinae (hedgehogs) and Galericinae (gymnures)."
• "split btween...red-toothed shrews" to "split between the subfamilies Crocidurinae (white-toothed shrews), Myosoricinae (African shrews), and Soricinae (red-toothed shrews)."
• Also for Talpidae.
• "exact organization of the species" Classification would be a better word than organization.
• "No species...since 1500 CE" to "No species have gone extinct since 1500 CE"
• Tables, refs, and images seem fine. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  @AryKun: All done, thanks! --PresN 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Support. Another excellent extensive work. Nothing to quibble on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• My only query is that "Members of the Soricidae family are soricids, and include shrews." sounds like there's something along the lines of "and [something else]" missing at the end (i.e. the use of "include" implies that it covers multiple different types of thing, not just one). If all the soricids are shrews then this could be simplified to "Members of the Soricidae family are soricids, or shrews."
• Other than that, all good as always! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks! --PresN 23:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review:
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 13 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (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, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Mercedes-EQ vehicles

Nominator(s): 750h+ 17:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This is my first featured list nomination. This is a list of all the Mercedes-EQ models, including the production and concept models. If this gets promoted, it will be the first automobile featured list. Thanks, and enjoy the read! 750h+ 17:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

I'll do a larger review later on, but for now I want to point out some accessibility issues.

• You used ! rowspan="1" when you should have used ! scope="row". For instances where a row span would only be 1, do not use the rowspan parameter. For instances where you do need to specify a rowspan, you would do ! scope="rowgroup" rowspan="2".
• Add column scopes
• Tables needs a title

Again, I'll be back to a larger review later on. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

those should be addressed now 750h+ 17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Consider adding the {{Use dmy dates|July 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been

done

• Why is there no body style listed for the concept vehicles?

i couldn’t find any references

• Ref columns should be unsortable

done

• Article needs a short description, even if set to none

done

• Ref 9 – Add David McHugh as the author and Associated Press as the agency

done

• Ref 16 – Add author and USA Today as the agency

done

• Ref 20 – Add author

done

• Ref 38 – Add author

done

• Ref 41 and 48 – Change the website to U.S. News & World Report

done

• Ref 46 – Add author

done

That's what I've got, good stuff! Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

thanks! All addressed, @Hey man im josh:. 750h+ 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Much thanks for the review! 750h+ 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Commentd

• "which was to be launched a few years later" - a bit vague....?
• There's three consecutive sentences that basically all start "They unveiled...." - any chance you can vary this a bit?
• "produced several concept cars, such include" - wording's a bit mangled here, I think
• The headings that include "(cal. year)" look a little odd. Why not just "(year)"?
• Is "SIP" a standard/well-known abbreviation in the motor trade? If not, I would write it in full or even use a {{N/A}} template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  All have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing! 750h+ 02:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much! 750h+ 08:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• Should the last sentence of the lead have a reference?

added

• Is it necessary to include "where various other electric cars—including the Opel Ampera-e and a redesigned Renault Zoe—debuted"? This article should really be focusing on Mercedes-EQ, and not feature unrelated cars prominently in the lead.

removed

• Why does the concept vehicles table not have a body style row?

I couldn't find any good references for some of the classes, so I just didn't add them

• Some websites in the citations aren't wikilinked. E.g. two instances of CNET and three instances of The Verge. There might be some others I haven't noticed.

added

• Specifying a px size for images should generally not be done as per MOS:IMGSIZE. It's fine for the images in the table (which is given as an exception in MOS:IMGSIZE), but for the lead image, the fixed px size (340px) should be replaced with upright=1.5.

done

That's all. Steelkamp (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

All have been addressed. Thanks for the review, @Steelkamp:. 750h+ 10:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! 750h+ 15:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: hope this isn't bugging but will there be an image review? 750h+ 05:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Featured list candidates don't strictly need an image review, unlike FAC, although someone can do an image review if they so choose. (not a FLC director or delegate) Steelkamp (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok. 750h+ 12:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That said, this is pretty image-heavy in an area that I'm not well familiar with, so I'd prefer one. The reason it's not "required" is due to a lack of people actually doing them. I'd give this a pass on the image review though- all commons, all self-uploads by... 3 people? Looks like a whole world of car photography I didn't know we had people doing. --PresN 22:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass! 750h+ 23:47, 24 July 2024 (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) 21:14, 28 July 2024 (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, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [6].

---

Detroit Lions draft picks (1936–1969)

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm extremely excited about this nomination, probably more so than any other nomination I've made, because this is the final part of a 4-part featured topic (my first!) that I've been working on based on the Detroit Lions draft history. If and when this list is promoted, I'll be receiving my first Triple Crown (provided they let me use a FT as my GT submission, someone pointed out I should probably follow up to see if this a thing) and making my first featured topic nomination!

This list is based on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969), which was promoted on June 3rd, and should meet all featured list criteria. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• A handful of players have no college listed and Lou Creekmur has no team in the AAFC dispersal draft - is this intentional or an oversight? If intentional, maybe add footnotes explaining how they came to be drafted without a college/AAFC team......
• "Hall of Fame linebacker Joe Schmidt was selected in the seventh-round" => "Hall of Fame linebacker Joe Schmidt was selected in the seventh round" (you only need to hyphenate it when it's being used as an adjective)
• Similrly "Hall of Fame defensive tackle Alex Karras was selected by the Lions' in the first-round of the 1958 draft." => "Hall of Fame defensive tackle Alex Karras was selected by the Lions' in the first round of the 1958 draft."
• That's all I got. Great work as ever!-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Creekmur was a very weird case... I added some notes, but, in short, he was drafted by an AAFC (and NFL) team but returned to school anyways. As a result, when the leagues merged, he was put into the player pool that was eligible for being drafted, despite never having played or signed for the LA Dons. I've added a note for clarity.
  • Fixed the text for Schmidt and Karras

  As for the colleges, I'll work on figuring out why they aren't listed. Perhaps that was a little bit lazy of me, instead of just going with what was available. Newspapers.com here I come! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Surprisingly, I was able to find all the college information, which I've added with references now. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Support. Nice work and in line with similar FLs. Could not find anything to quibble. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for taking a look @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

Sorry, I missed this nom while on Wiki-break! Source review: Passed

• Reliable for what is being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks all looked good.
• Support nice work! I can't find anything to improve. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the format and the source review @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images relevant to the article
• All images properly captioned
• All images have alt text
• All images either under PD or an appropriate license (AGF on self-published sources).

Support on images. Thanks for your work as always, and congratulations on completing (upon promotion of this list) a Triple Crown and a featured topic @Hey man im josh! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review and the congratulations @Staraction! Unfortunately I fear that a featured topic may not count in place of a good topic, so my hopes of a Triple Crown may be gone! Unless someone gets back to me on my inquiry. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2024 (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, 28 July 2024 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [7].

---

United States congressional delegations from Arizona

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

• "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying members of the House" - obviously each state elects varying members, they don't all elect the same ones. I think what you mean is "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying numbers of members of the House"
• "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation is" => "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation, is"
• "of its two senators, one Democrat and one independent, and its nine representatives: 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats." - odd that you write all the numbers as words and then suddenly switch to digits at the end......
• "Of those, Martha McSally and Kyrsten Sinema have been the first and only women" - I think "the only women" would suffice, as if they are the only ones than by definition they were also the first
• "such that each election, around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election" => "such that at each election around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election"
• "Following 1940 census" => "Following the 1940 census"
• "Following 1960 census" => "Following the 1960 census" (and so on for all the others)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hi! Thanks for your feedback! I've done everything except for the second bullet point. Wouldn't "or longest serving member" be a parenthetical clause; thus removing it leaves "The current dean of the Arizona delegation is" vs. "The current dean of the Arizona delegation, is"? I feel like the first option makes more grammatical sense. Let me know if I'm missing something or if there's more. Thanks again for reviewing! Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, ignore that one, I don't know what I was thinking there. One thing I didn't pick up on before, though: "Seven women have served Arizona in the House, including Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally, who are the only women who have served Arizona in the Senate" - doesn't that sentence contradict itself? Seven women have served in the House, including two who served in the Senate? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  It was a little bit weird to phrase and I don't think it came out properly. Sinema and McSally both served in the House prior to serving in the Senate, and they are the only women to have ever served in the Senate. Is there a better way to phrase that? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  • How about "Seven women have served Arizona in the House, including Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally, who also served the state in the Senate, the only women to do so"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

    Sounds good, thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "The first woman to serve Arizona in the Senate was Isabella Greenway." - House of Representatives, not Senate.
• the current senator table is missing colscopes. Also its first header needs to be made into a table caption
• In the full senate table, you don't need to bold the Congress since that is a header cell in every row. This should be checked for the other tables as well.
• There is also no need of setting the height. The height anyway expands to more than 2em when there is less space. This probably holds true for other tables as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Hi, thanks for your feedback! All should be fixed. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support on prose and table accessibility. I fixed a few minor accessibility issues in some of the tables. You can keep those in mind when you prep your next FL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 @Staraction Sorry, I reverted these edits because the table wasn't displaying terms right. In my experience the 2ems are needed because otherwise mid-term changes don't show correctly, though I don't know if there's a better way to fix them. I'll put the other changes back once I have more time though. Emk9 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

• Support:I support you, but don't forget to update after elections. --金色黎明 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Some suggestions...

• "the Cook Partisan Voting Index, a determination of how strongly partisan a state is" -> recommend replacing "determination" with "measure"
• "14 people have served as a U.S. Senator from Arizona." -> Could expand this to say "Since its first congressional delegation in 1913, 14 people have served as a U.S. Senator for Arizona" (make sure to also copy the citation from the lead for the 1913 claim)
• "rotating through each class such that [in] each election[,] around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election" <- add in the stuff in the brackets
• "One member of the House of Representatives is sent from each district via a popular vote." -> this should be reworded (ex: "Each district uses a popular vote to elect a member of Arizona's delegation in the House of Representatives.")
• "Arizona has had nine congressional districts since districts were redrawn in 2013 as a result of the 2010 United States Census." -> this should be reworded (ex: "Since its districts were redrawn in 2013 according to the results of the 2010 census, Arizona has had nine congressional districts")
• "For six years, the seats were elected at-large statewide on a general ticket." <- doesn't at-large and statewide mean the same thing? (recommend taking out at-large if possible or rewording for concision)
• 1912–1943: 1 seat, 1943–1963: 2 seats, 1963–1973: 3 seats, 1973–1983: 4 seats, 1983–1993: 5 seats, 1993–2003: 6 seats, 2003–2013: 8 seats, & 2013–present: 9 seats <- make sure all the prose-text in those subsections have in-line references
• All the tables under the United States House of Representatives section are missing refs and should have some sort of ref/citation added either in the column/row headers or as a table footnote
• For the 2022 U.S. representatives from Arizona table, the "Incumbent since" column should have a ref in the header if possible (like CPVI (2022) header next to it already does)
• "Arizona's current congressional delegation in the 118th Congress consists of its two senators, one Democrat and one independent, and its nine representatives, six Republicans and three Democrats." should also have an in-line ref
• "Senator Kyl was appointed by governor Doug Ducey to fill the seat of John McCain, who died in office." -> recommend rewording to "Senator Kyl was appointed by governor Doug Ducey to fill the seat of John McCain after McCain's death in office."
• Not completely sure whether this is required per MOS:DTAB but I'd recommend adding |+{{sronly|}} for each of the tables (this template is used by screenreaders as a sort of title/caption for the table to my knowledge)
• Just a thought but I feel like this sort of list would benefit from a brief infobox where the current map & caption are kept and additional basic info (e.g. year of first delegation, current number of districts (as of which census), numerical party control/distribution of the delegation, dean of the delegation, etc.)

I'm not particularly familiar with these types of lists so not sure what's considered standard or not but I'd strongly recommend adding at least some refs to the tables imo. Otherwise, this is a great list for a great state! :) Many thanks Staraction for nominating this! Please ping on reply if needed. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like most of the suggestions were applied and after taking another quick read through of the page and making one very minor edit, I think it's ready to be promoted. Support for FL status and thanks Staraction for the quick followup! Dan the Animator 20:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comments & the fast response! I was unable to reply to you yesterday before I had to attend to something important in real life but your comments are very appreciated :D Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Please note that this is my first image review. My comments would be largely based on image review from the corresponding article on Connecticut. Most of them are official portraits, so there shouldn't be any problem, but I'll still try to be thorough. Feel free to correct me if I miss anything here.
• File:Kyrsten Sinema (cropped).jpg- Source link is broken, but can be verified from archived link.
• File:Mark Kelly, Official Portrait 117th (cropped).jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be found here.
• File:Rep. Eli Crane official photo, 118th Congress.jpg- Image not found in second source link, but can be verified from archived link.
• File:Andy Biggs official portrait.jpg- Source link is broken, but can be verified from archived link.
• File:Paul Gosar 115th Congress.jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be verified from archived link.
• File:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg- I'm unable to access the source link, but PD can be verified here.
• File:Sinema Dec 2023.jpg- Image not found in either source links, but can be found here. However, the license stated here is CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
• File:Isabella Selmes Ferguson Greenway.jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be verified from archived link.
• All images have alt text.
• All images appropriately captioned
• All images relevant to text. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, thank you so much for the image review! I've replaced the second Sinema image. Kelly's portrait was found on that page (just a little bit farther down); I've replaced the source link with something more specific. Would I need to change anything else? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Nitro Absynthe pinging for convenience! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Archive all references
• Ref 1, 6, 12news.com → 12News
• Ref 16 add date July 12, 2022
• Ref 33 requires subscription
• Ref 38 link author Alden Whitman
• Ref 39 add via=Newspapers.com
• Ref 41 requires subscription, link author Nicholas Fandos
• Link websites for the following. If you don't want to link the same article in multiple sources you don't have to. For example "Ref 8, 10, 22, 23 link United States Senate" you can just link the first instance which would be ref 8. I'm fine with it either way.

Extended content

Ref 1, 6 link KPNX-TV Ref 2 link United States Government Printing Office Ref 3 link USAGov Ref 4 link Arizona Capitol Times Ref 7, 20 link Axios (website) Ref 8, 10, 22, 23 link United States Senate Ref 11 link United States House of Representatives Ref 12 link European Journal of Pediatrics Ref 15 link Clerk of the United States House of Representatives Ref 17 link The Arizona Republic Ref 18, 30, 31 link The Washington Post Ref 19, 21 link The Guardian, Guardian News & Media Limited Ref 24 link GovTrack Ref 25 link Politico Ref 26, 39 link Arizona Daily Star Ref 27 link Associated Press Ref 28 link CNBC Ref 29 link Biographical Directory of the United States Congress Ref 33, 38, 41 link The New York Times Ref 35 link The White House Ref 36 link ABC News (United States) Ref 37 link United States Census Bureau Ref 40 link The Baltimore Sun

• Copyvios shows no major issues.

-- EN-Jungwon 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you so much for the review! I believe I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out; if there are more please let me know! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon pinging for convenience! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Support -- EN-Jungwon 08:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 14:37, 27 July 2024 (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) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [8].

---

The Linda Lindas discography

Nominator(s): – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. JK I have been looking through other FL discographies and adapted features from them, so I think this one is ready. Please leave any feedback if you need. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: and @RunningTiger123:: I'm interested to hear: do you think it's ready? I've responded to all comments. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 23:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• "The Linda Lindas formed in Los Angeles in 2018 by" => "The Linda Lindas were/was [whichever is correct in US English - I get confused with how band names are treated] formed in Los Angeles in 2018 by"
• "In 2021, band went viral" => "In 2021, the band went viral"
• Image caption isn't a complete sentence so should not have a full stop
• There's no need for a "certifications" column in the album table if they haven't received any
• If "Growing Up" was a single then it probably shouldn't also be included in "other appearances"
• Why is the music video table split into two? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude:Done – added "was" and "the", removed period, certifications column, and "Growing Up" from other appearances.

  As for the music videos, I have it split because the main list is the music videos by the band, and the other one is a list of music videos the band made cameos in. (I moved them further apart for clarity) – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 21:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  If the second table is for cases where the band guested in someone else's video, I think it should indicate whose video it was.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done – I added an "artist" column – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 15:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - apologies, I got a bit bogged down and forgot to revisit this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• The EPs and singles are mostly unsourced. If something doesn't chart, it will need some other source to prove it was released. (SZA discography is a recent FL that does this well.)
  • If the MusicBrainz general reference is meant to cover these, note that the site is user-generated and not reliable (see commentary at this RfC and this RSN discussion, among other places).
• "Totally Killer" should probably be in italics, not quotes

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Done – sourced releases of EPs, italicized Totally Killer – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 02:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Still not seeing sources for the singles... RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Done – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 02:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, trying not to get too bogged down now but I noticed some of the new citations use Citation Style 2 when most of the others use Citation Style 1; you should pick a consistent style within the list and stick to it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Normalized to style 1 – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 02:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by NØ

I have been enjoying your work on the Linda Lindas articles so I hope you don't mind that I have reviewed this!

• I don't think the hatnote is needed since none of the topics at the disambiguation page would be sought out with an exclamation mark. In fact, just Vote! could also be safely redirected here.
• "The Linda Lindas released their debut album entitled Growing Up in 2022." - Suggest commas before and after "entitled Growing Up"
• The album not charting on the Billboard 200 appears to be unsourced, and I am not sure mentioning that is necessary even if a source were to be found.
• It is not immediately obvious what "(87875)" denotes, and it does not seem to be common practice on discography articles to include these.
• In ref 34, the parenthesis "Spin (magazine)" should not appear to readers and should instead just spell out "Spin"

That is all. This list is solid and, other than these comments, is ready for promotion in my opinion.--NØ 11:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: done. Removed hatnote, created redirect, added commas, removed Billboard 200 claim, removed (87875) [which was the "ID" of the album on the label], and piped Spin. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 12:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 12:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (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) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [9].

---

Rumford Medal

Nominator(s): Nitro Absynthe (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A prestigious physics award given by the Royal Society since 1800. The article's structure (particularly the lead) is largely based on Darwin Medal, another RS Medal, which was promoted to FL in 2022. I am renominating this for FL because I feel like I've addressed all the issues that were brought up in the article's FLRC discussion. Also, I got approval for the same in a recent peer review. This is my first FL nomination. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note that I have transcluded this page to main FLC list.– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Sir Benjamin Thompson, known as Count Rumford" - this makes it sound like it was a nickname, rather than an honorific title. Change to "Sir Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford"
  • Fixed.
• "noted for his works on thermodynamics, and for establishing the Royal Institution" - remove that comma
  • Fixed.
• "one each in silver and gold, struck in the same die, and made of silver gilt." - one is silver and one is gold, but they are both made of silver? I don't understand this.
  • Apologies, that was a poorly worded sentence. Initially, 2 medals were awarded (silver and gold). Later, this was changed to 1 silver-gilt medal. Similar changes were made for Copley Medal as well. I have rephrased it in the article.
• "For ten times during the early 19th century" => "Ten times during the early 19th century"
  • Fixed.
• "since then it is awarded annually" => "since then it has been awarded annually"
  • Fixed.
• ""For his Experiments on Heat, published in his Work, entitled, an Experimental Inquiry into the Nature and Propagation of Heat"" - is this bizarre capitalisation of random words how the source presents it?
  • Yes (from ref 13). Earlier editions of RS-published sources had inconsistent capitalization, from which some of the rationales were sourced, hence the issue.
• "For his 'Experiments on the Polarization of Heat,' " - comma should be outside the quote marks (unless this is how the source presents it)
  • That is how it is presented in the source (ref 32).
• "For his 'Experimental Investigations on Polarized Light,' " - same here (unless this is how the source presents it)
  • Same here (ref 40).
• "the Society of Arts of May 12, 1854" - did the Society really use the US date format?
  • Yes. The quote is sourced from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (ref 43).
• Where there were joint winners, you could merge the cells in the rationale column
  • Could you please elaborate on this? The cells in the rationale column for joint winners are already merged, unless I am missing something here.
    • Apologies, it was because I had re-sorted the table, which caused the cells to un-merge -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• 2000 rationale has no end quote mark
  • Fixed.
• "for his role in rebellion of 1831 in Parma" => "for his role in the rebellion of 1831 in Parma"
  • Fixed.
• "Alfred Des Cloizeaux" should sort under D as "Des" is part of his surname, not a second forename
  • Fixed.
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. Please let me know if there are any issues in the edits, or if I've missed anything. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• It would be good to get the English translations of the Latin inscriptions on the medal, at least for the modern version of the medal.
  • Done for the modern version. Couldn't find any source for the older version.
• "All citizens or residents of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations, or the Republic of Ireland". Since the UK is in the Commonwealth of Nations, you can skip it from this list.
  • Fixed.
• Infobox: It's not obvious from the reference that the Rumford medal is just lower than the Royal Medal in precedence.
  • 'Precedence' was added to maintain consistency with other RS Medal articles like Copley Medal and Royal Medal. I couldn't find any other source explicitly mentioning the order of precedence, so retained the source cited there. The awards in the table are listed in decreasing order (Royal Medal is the lowest rank of Premier Awards; subject-specific medals are of equivalent rank). I'm willing to remove this section if the source isn't good enough. Please let me know.
• Suggestion: Expand the "No award rowspan to cover the "Notes" column too.
  • Done.
• That's all I have. Please ping me here when you reply. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824. Please let me know if any further changes are required. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

    • Unless you find a good source for the precedence of the awards, I suggest that you remove it.
    • "The diameter of the medal is 3 inches (7.62 cm). British painter Robert Smirke created the original design of the medal." Exchange the order of these two sentences, since the next few sentences are about the medal's design.
    • Use of the word "Currently" is frowned upon per MOS:CURRENTLY. you can replace it with something else. e.g. "As of <year of change>,". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

    • All done @MPGuy2824. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

      Support promotion based on prose and table accessibility. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

• I extensively reviewed the list at its peer review page and have nothing to add except support this list for promotion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (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) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Seattle Kraken draft picks

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

• Link the team name on first usage
• "Only four of the Kraken's draft picks of gone on to play" => "Only four of the Kraken's draft picks have gone on to play"
• Per MOS:COLOR, you cannot use just colour to highlight something, as readers with visual problems may not be able to identify the colours. You need to also use a symbol.
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• One cell in every row should be the header cell and it should begin with a "!" instead of a "|". You can also use rowspan for the years, since a lot of them are in common. You should change the scope to "rowgroup" if you do this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Addition to this: replace "caption_text" with the actual text of the caption you want. --PresN 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed it. XR228 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can you also take a look at this conversation. The same changes would need to be made in the table here. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

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

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

I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You missed a few, but this is the feedback I have:

• Ref 4 – add |subscription=required
• The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately.
• Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
• The images need alt text added for accessibility
• ...Ryker Evans, Ryan Winterton, and 2022 fourth overall pick Shane Wright. – Remove the part about his pick. It's not specified for others so it's not necessary for Shane Wright.
• General ref 2 – Add <code>|website=[[Hockey-Reference.com]]</code>, publisher can stay since they're the parent company
• The table currently has a table title of "caption text"
• Second image uses "first" and "4th", switch it to "fourth" for consistency.
• This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NHL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.
• Use "background-color" instead of just "background" for the column headers. If you do not do so, the sorting icon is missing, which makes the page below what we expect for accessibility. You also have an extra exclamation point in the column text, just before "scope", that should be removed.
• If this is meant to be THE entirety of the team's picks, why are the picks from the 2021 NHL expansion draft not included?

That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have made the changes. The 2021 expansion draft was selecting players from 30 of the already existing teams, so it isn't the same as an entry draft. XR228 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@XR228: There's a number of points you have failed to address, some of which this is the third time I'm mentioning:

• Ref 4 – For the third time, add |subscription=required to the reference, as a subscription is required to access the source
• The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately. Needs to be called out or explained in some way.
• Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
• This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NFL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.

Further feedback:

• General ref 1 – Change from publisher = |publisher=The Internet Hockey Database to |website=HockeyDB, based on the fact the Wiki page is called that
• Draft picks are draft picks. I don't see a reason not to include other players that were drafted by this team.
• Add the {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description for consistent date formatting

As mentioned, ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've made the changes. Also, there is a difference between an ENTRY draft and an EXPANSION draft. The FL List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks does not have any selections from Atlanta's expansion draft. XR228 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@XR228: I understand there's a difference between entry and expansion drafts. I'm heavily involved with NFL articles, particularly draft list promotions, and we have had expansion drafts as well. @The Kip: has discussed the issue of the expansion draft with me at his nomination for the Vegas Golden Knights. I don't love the exclusion of it, and I genuinely believe it's relevant, but I'm willing to let it slide and not use that as a reason to oppose promotion of these lists.

• Prior to the 2005–06 season, the NHL instituted a penalty shootout for regular season games that remained tied after a five-minute overtime period, which prevented ties – Close, but might be a bit too wordy. What about something like "As of the 2005–06 season, the NHL implemented new tiebreaker procedures, making ties no longer possible."?
• "Entry Drafts" should be lowercased.
• Row scopes need to be declared with an exclamation point (! scope="row") to be accessible. | scope="row" is not acceptable for accessibility reasons.

I fixed the general reference myself. Again, please ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, @PresN, any other changes that need to be made? XR228 (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I have made the requested changes. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 (verification and copyvio check)

• Table:
  • Individual references for Beniers, Evans, Winterton and Wright are needed to show their entire NHL career was with the Kraken.
  • Janicke (2021) was Left Winger.
  • Jackson (2022) was Centre.
  • Needs a reference to show the nationality of all of the players.

• Lead:
  • The entire first paragraph is uncited. All of the content should be cited like at List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks.
  • "Kraken have participated in three drafts and selected 28 players." -> four drafts and selected 36 players.
  • "The NHL entry draft is held each June" - not mentioned at the NHL guidelines.
  • "exceptions being players...age 18, 19, or 20." - this long sentence copies and closely paraphrases the four points from NHL operations. This quoted part should all be removed.
  • "order determined by the number of points earned by each team" - this part should be reworded a bit to meet WP:LIMITED to avoid similar wording at Entry Draft Order points at NHL operations.
  • "weighted lottery for the 16 non-playoff teams" - new updated source needed as the 2013 NHL Draft lottery source has 14 teams, not 16.
  • "four of the Kraken's draft picks have gone on to play with the Kraken" - Condor 2024 doesn't mention Shane Wright. Need an extra citation here.
  • "The team with the fewest points has the best chance of winning the lottery," - New source needed as the NHL operations guidelines don't mention a lottery.

Oppose Based on the copyvio from NHL operations, I will have to oppose for now. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @XR228. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Hey man im josh. I didn't see this. My bad. I'll get to this as soon as I can. XR228 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the requested changes. XR228 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello. There's a few leftover points to go through:

• The entire first paragraph in the lead needs citations.
• order determined by the number of points earned by each team" - needs rewording to avoid close paraphrasing of NHL Operations.
• allowing the winner to move up to the first overall pick" - This isn't 100% correct. Only the top 11 teams can win the #1 pick (#1 can't move up anymore, #2-#11 can move up 10 spots to #1) per NHL.
• Table references for Benier, Evans, Winerton and Wright neeeded to show they only played with the Kraken. Otherwise, the shades and key can be removed

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Kraken compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) as a member of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference and began play during the league's 2021–22 season," - Not verified by NHL 2018 as the team was not named yet, that they competed in the Western Conference/Pacific Division nor their first season was in 2021. An overall source about the Kraken's playing history and division/conference can work here.
• making them the second newest team in the NHL" - The 2018 NHL source says they were scheduled to debut in 2021, while the 2024 NHL source does not mention Seattle was the 2nd newest. A different source is needed that shows the 2 newest teams are Seattle (2021) and Utah (scheduled 2024).
• "Since their creation, the Kraken have participated in four drafts and selected 36 players" - Thank you for rewriting. This now needs a source.
• "any of the top 11 teams to move up to the first overall pick" -> " any of the top 11 teams to win the first overall pick" (since the #1 team can't move up anymore)

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Almost there. "as a member of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference" -> "as a member of the Pacific Division" (as HockeyDB doesn't say Western). Once that's adjusted, you'll be good to go verification wise! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the change. XR228 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 can you change this to "Support" XR228 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for the changes! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images relevant to the article - perhaps include more if appropriate? Please ping me if you do.
• All images have proper licenses
• All images have alt text - perhaps change them to specify a particular format of image? ie. "Photograph of the Kraken's first ever draft pick, Matty Berniers"
• All images have captions

Support on images. Thanks for your work @XR228! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the Support! XR228 (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (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) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [11].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1968

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

With the 1966 list having just been promoted and the 1967 having multiple supports, here's the 1968 list. This year's chart-toppers included a Brazilian Beatles cover, a French cover of a Luxembourgish contest entry, and a cover of a 1941 big band song about a train. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images have alt text
• All images are in public domain or appropriately licensed
• All images are relevant to the article
• All images are captioned appropriately

Support on images. Thanks again for your quality content :) Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support on prose and table accessibility. Sad that there is no usable image for the French orchestra leader who spent the most time on the top of this chart. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @MPGuy2824: - yup, sadly no free-use images of Paul Mauriat appear to be available and a fair-use image couldn't really be justified on this article.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

My only feedback is that ref 2 needs a publish date of November 14, 2011. Good job Chris, but you didn't stump me this time! Please ping me when that's been addressed I'll be happy to support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - done! I hadn't noticed this before and I don't know if it's to do with my geographical settings or something, but when I open that source, it displays the date you mention for about half a second before it changes to "13 years ago", which I deemed too vague to put in the citation. Weird..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I actually hovered over the "13 years ago" to see that date. I just happened to be curious if it would show me and it did! Anyways, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Mendes would achieve a second number one 15 years after the first when he made a comeback in 1983. -- perhaps worth mentioning the song, since I read a similar example for Billy Joel.
• he would not return to the top of the chart until 1975. -- same as above for Campbell's comeback.
• Nothing more to add. Solid work again. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: - both done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• Ref 4 should have 'Come to the Sunshine' in single quotes, and probably with the Ts in lowercase.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Adult contemporary charts are subscription only, so this should be indicated with a "url-access=subscription" in the refs, probably.
  • Even though the number ones can be seen without the need to subscribe......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    • That's a good point.

The actual article is perfect this time and I had to dip into the sourcing to have comments, lol. Really good work. I have a very short article at FAC in case you would like to return a review.--NØ 12:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 12:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (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) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [12].

---

List of BBC National Short Story Award winners

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

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

Comments

• "(previously known as the National Short Story Award, 2006-2007)" - I think "(known as the National Short Story Award in 2006 and 2007)" would work better
• "It is an annual short story contest in the United Kingdom which is open to UK residents and nationals" - I would move it to the first sentence i.e. "The BBC National Short Story Award is an annual....." and then move the bit about it being prestigious into the second sentence
• "the winners receives" - this should be easier "the winner receives" or "the winners receive" but not what you have currently
• Both notes need a full stop
• That's all I got - great first nom! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback, I've made all the improvements you suggested Il lupa (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Sorting the results column should put the runner-ups between the winners and the short-listed candidates.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 2001 becomes !scope=row | 2001 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have fixed the results column sorting and added column and row scopes. I'm pretty sure I've done it correctly but please let me know if I'm wrong! Il lupa (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your changes look good. Another issue: The last column in every table sometimes has multiple references. You can use the {{Ref.}} template for each of the column headers to take care of this. Please ping me here when you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 I have updated the headers. Il lupa (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review - BennyOnTheLoose

Happy to discuss any of these points. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose Thanks for all your feedback! I've gone through and updated everything apart from two small things:

• I agree that it would be better to change "Each year, the winner receives £15,000 and four shortlisted writers receive £600 each..." to "As of 2017..." but I don't technically have a source for the year, I can just tell by looking at past winners. Given that, I'm not sure if I should change the sentence?
• I do not have a 2024 source for Sarah Hall.

If I've missed anything or made any mistakes, let me know. Il lupa (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Il lupa: Thanks, just a couple of points pending. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• For the two points you've mentioned above, I think MOS:NOW gives some helpful advice about rewording.
• Lead has the BBC quote ""the most prestigious [award] for a single short story", but the more independent (London Met) has "one of the most prestigious for a single short story". I think it would be better to add the "one of" qualification, unless there is another good source.
• "As of 2018, the BBC National Short Story Award has not had an all-male shortlist" - I think it should be "As of 2018, the BBC National Short Story Award had not had an all-male shortlist"

Source review

• I made some changes suggested by scripts, including one for consistency in how dates appear. Please review to see if there are any issues with those changes.
• ISSN is not required for newspapers, but if you are including it then it should be there for all citations, for consistency.
• Some inconsistency in how sources are shown, e.g. first ref has BBC, but "Fifteenth BBC National Short Story Award shortlist revealed" has www.bbc.co.uk.
• publisher=The Globe and Mail location=Toronto - inconsistent with other cite news templates used here. I think it's best to just use work (or newspaper).
• Similarly, Belfast Telegraph should be either work or newspaper, not "publisher"
• WP:RSN has "no consensus" for reliability of The Spectator. I think for what it's supporting here, it's fine to use that publication.
• No concerns with the reliability and suitability of the other sources used, for the topic and the information supported.
• The info in the Notes is cited in the lead. Personally I'd prefer that the sources were added to the footnotes too, but it wouldn't be grounds for a source review failure if they were not.
• I think that the text Includes full text of story after the Creamer & Wood citation is fine, as there is no suitable parameter in the cite news template that I can see.
• What makes the BBC itself a suitable source for "It has been described as 'the most prestigious [award] for a single short story"?
• The quote in the previous bullet should be in double quotion marks. (MOS:DOUBLE)
• Spot check on "the richest prize in the world for a single short story" - no issues (except "Richard Lea" should appear as "Lea, Richard")
• "Rosemary Westwood" should appear as Rosemary "Westwood, Rosemary"
• Spot check on "Each year, the winner receives £15,000 and four shortlisted writers receive £600 each" - supported by the source; but I wonder if it would be better to phrase this with something like "As of 2024..." given that later we find out that originally "while runners up received £3,000 and shortlisted writers £500 each". Also, the prizes might not always be the same amounts in future.
• "£500 each.[5][4]" - some editors prefer citations in numerical order. Not necessary to swap the five and four, but you could if you wanted to. (Same with "[4][1]" and "[16][1]")
• Spot check on "It was founded in 2005 and announced at the Edinburgh International Book Festival the same year" - no issues
• Optionally, you could add an author-link= parameter for Aida Edemariam.
• Spot check on "The BBC National Short Story Award has never had an all-male shortlist" - source is from 2018 so cannot support "never"
• Spot check on " In 2009, only women were featured on the shortlist" - no issues
• Spot check on "Sarah Hall, who won the award in 2013 and 2020, is the only writer to have won the award twice" - source is from 2020 so can't support info from after that. It's perhaps fair to argue that it is supported by the fully cited tables later in the article, but is there a 2024 source that confirms this?

• Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• Per MOS:£, £ should only be wikilinked, if at all, at the first instance.
• "Canadian writer D. W. Wilson became the youngest ever recipient of the award in 2011" - consider adding the author's age at time of winning.
• I think that If a book is locked there's probably a good reason for that, don't you think? and And the moon descends on the temple that was might need some extra capitals - please review MOS:TITLECAPS and let me know what you think.

@Il lupa: Just making sure you're aware that feedback has been provided. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me! Il lupa (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose I believe I've fixed all the issues except for the fact that I don't have a source for when the prize amounts changed so I can't see how to reword it to be clearer Il lupa (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Il lupa: How about something like "Naomi Wood won the 2023 award for Comorbidities and received £15,000. The other four shortlisted writers received £600 each." ? (I realised that Wood wasn't mentioned in the intro.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose Does Wood need to be mentioned in the intro? If not, I would probably be inclined to leave the lead as it is. Il lupa (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Il lupa: no, so how about something like "In 2023 the winner received £15,000 and the other four shortlisted writers received £600 each."? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose I've switched up the wording and references slightly so it should now be clear and address your original concern. Let me know what you think! Il lupa (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Il lupa: Thanks! All looks good now. Great work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 14:39, 27 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Seattle Reign FC seasons

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the sixth list in a series on Seattle sports team seasons that I have brought to FLC, and one for one of the newer teams in the area. Seattle Reign FC are in their 12th season as a top-flight women's soccer team and have yet to win a league championship, but not for a lack of trying, with three podium finishes. The list is formatted similarly to List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons, which blends American sports lists with the international soccer standards. SounderBruce 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "the best performing team [....] with the most points" - is this not a bit tautological?
  • Removed "best performing" to make it clearer; American sports can have multiple ways of determining the "best" team.
• "The NWSL Cup champion" - is this the same thing as the NWSL Challenge Cup?
  • Fixed.
• "The Reign set the standalone single-match attendance record" - is the word "standalone" needed here? In this context does it not just mean the same as "single-match"?
  • Removed "single"; the Reign also have a higher reported attendance from a "doubleheader" with the Sounders where one ticket was good for both games on the same day, but separate numbers weren't released.
• "The winner of that competition qualifies for the FIFA Women's Club World Cup" - given that that competition hasn't launched yet, I think this needs to be in the future tense (this occurs in two places)
  • Fixed.
• That's it I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, as always, and thanks for finding things to smooth out. SounderBruce 02:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• In the table you can remove the SC column since it has no data.
  • The SC column is for a new annual tournament that will begin in a few weeks' time. It is expected to be a regular and major event, so I think it warrants its own column.
• Italics seems to be for an ongoing competition, but it is used in the 2020 season's row.
  • Removed.
• The Div cells can be merged since they have been in the same Division since their inception. Ditto for the League column.
  • These are standard across soccer lists due to other leagues employing promotion and relegation. There is also a chance that the table could be transcluded into History of professional soccer in Seattle, which would also include the lower-division women's teams in the area.
• Sorting the CC column in descending order should show SF, the QF, then GS, right?
• Similar issue with the result column for the other competitions. Also, I think you can replace "W" with "1st", for consistency with the "Position" column.
  • These are sorted similar to other soccer lists for simplicity, since the sort anchor is by the number of teams remaining at each stage of the competition (e.g. 01 for winning, 04 for semifinals, 08 for quarterfinals).
• That's all I have. Please ping me here when you reply. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @MPGuy2824: Thanks for the review. I have made one change and replied to your other points. SounderBruce 00:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • @MPGuy2824: Just checking in. SounderBruce 22:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• @MPGuy2824: just chipping in to say that I personally would disagree with I think you can replace "W" with "1st", for consistency with the "Position" column. Teams are never said to have finished "first" in a single-elimination competition, only in one which is league/round-robin based.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  True. I've striken out that point. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 14 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|July 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
  • Added.
• I think the position column could be titled better. Is it their division placement, their placement in the regular season, what is this?
  • Added tooltip description.
• Several of the cells in the total column should probably be combined and greyed out, or at least greyed out to indicate they aren't going to be filled, such as the playoffs, CC, SC, and "other" columns. They're not really a good thing to try to summarize the "total" of at that location.
  • Grayed out most of the columns.
• Do the statistics included in the table include all playoff statistics as well? I'm not sure how it works in soccer stat tracking, which is why I'd like to know about this.
  • Playoffs are not counted in the main table, per international norms that treat them as secondary competitions.
• Is the intent, should the Reign finish last in a season, to list their position as "last", or to list the actual placement number? If it's not the text "last", then
  • Removed, as hopefully it won't ever need to be used. It was a holdover from tables that indicate promotion and relegation, which is very unlikely to be implemented anytime soon in NWSL.
• Is there any reason that Rapinoe islisted ahead of Balcer in the 2022 row? I believe we typically order alphabetically by last name in instances of ties
  • Rapinoe had more assists, so she is listed first in FBref; this is a pretty common tiebreaker when determining the Golden Boot winner for many leagues.
• Have you always only wikilinked on first mention of a source in references? You're consistent in doing so here, for the most part. I obviously prefer to link everytime, since references get added and changed, but I was just seeking clarity before my next comment
  • Either wikilink more than the first occurence, or
  • Ref 27 – Remove link to Sports Reference
    • Removed. I prefer to only link the first instance in citations.
• Refs 1, 2, 4, 6 – Add a subscription needed tag, I'm assuming you have a Seattle Times subscription given your interests :P
  • Added a limited tag, as the paywall usually allows for some free articles.
• Refs 14 and 27 – I believe the convention would be to change "FBref" to FBref.com and wikilink in 14 but not 27
  • Added.

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @SounderBruce, as it seems like they didn't see this comment yet. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: All comments addressed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 23:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Brindille1

• "The team has the fourth-highest average attendance among NWSL franchises with 13,609 spectators per match" - Should make this clear that it's the highest average for a single season.
  • Added.
• The prose and the "Key to competitions" should explain the NWSL Fall series
  • Added.
• "A concurrent cup tournament, the NWSL Challenge Cup" - What is this concurrent with? Also, this tournament has restructured and the prose should mention that
  • Added.
• The "Key to competitions" should include The Women's Cup
  • Added.
• In "Key to cup record", NH, DNE, QR, PR Ro16, and Ro32 are unused and can be removed (Ro32 and R16 are also out of order).
  • The key would be incomplete without a full set, so I don't think it would be worth removing them. Fixed the order of the rounds.
• It seems unnecessary to include the League and especially the Div. The club plays in the same league and there's no pro/rel
  • As explained above, it is to maintain consistency across other soccer lists and allow for future transclusion.
• I don't see the playoff results on the FBREF page that's been cited
  • Having trouble finding a good citation for this (NWSL recordkeeping is notoriously poor), but will add one eventually. SounderBruce 06:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• The source for Rapinoe's 51 goals doesn't indicate that she's the club's all-time leading scorer.
  • Added a source.

Brindille1 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Brindille1: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments and made changes to the list. SounderBruce 06:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Brindille1 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [14].

---

List of international goals scored by Pelé

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

• "Pelé made his debut for Brazil in a 1–2 defeat" => "Pelé made his debut for Brazil in a 2–1 defeat" (the norm is to always write the higher score first, regardless of the result from the team in question's perspective (e.g. "England drop further points at home in their Euro 2025 qualifying campaign as they fall to a 2-1 defeat by group leaders France", "the Portland Timbers suffered a 2-0 loss to Charlotte FC at Bank of America on Saturday night", "FC Dallas Suffers 2-0 Defeat to Seattle Sounders FC in Postseason Opener")
• "Following the tournament, he was nicknamed" - this would be far more appropriate in the previous paragraph, where the tournament in question is discussed
• "Although Brazil came runners-up" => "Although Brazil were runners-up"
• "and included in the Time list" - link Time
• Note a needs a full stop
• Conversely note c does not
• "He was surpassed by Northern Ireland's Norman Whiteside in the 1982 FIFA World Cup" => "He was surpassed by Northern Ireland's Norman Whiteside at the 1982 FIFA World Cup"
• That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  All done, I think, @ChrisTheDude. Thank you as always for the comments. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! style="text-align: center;"|1 becomes !scope=row | 1 (on its own line).
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
• This applies to all the tables. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824, I think it's done. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  For each table in the Statistics section, every row needs a header cell. The first cell seems most appropriate for these 3 tables. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824, I'd somehow missed those. I think that's done as well now. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The cities and countries listed in the venue columns really don't need to be linked, following the formats of other international goal lists. WP:SOB
• The Argentina flag in the hat-trick list is an alt version and should be changed.

Idiosincrático (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, @Idiosincrático. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support – Idiosincrático (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review - BennyOnTheLoose

Source review and a couple of general comments below. Happy to disuss any of these. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose, responses below. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Footballdatabase.eu is user generated content (see discussion at RSN)
  • Replaced. –S
• What makes Sambafoot a reliable source?
  • I haven't seen any issues with it at RSN and it's the only source that shows specifically what goals were scored by who in the two matches it's cited for. I'm happy to replace it with 11v11.com if you disagree. –S
    • It looks like a gambling-focused site, so probably more regulated than a general one. On reflection, seems fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Goal (website) could be "Goal"
  • Is it not like that already? –S
    • I must have been looking at the edit view and confused myself. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Spot check on "Pelé scored seven international hat-tricks, the most of any Brazilian player." - what's the support in the source for this being "the most of any Brazilian player"?
  • Added another source to better support this. –S
• Spot check on "one of only five players, the others being Uwe Seeler, Miroslav Klose, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Lionel Messi, to have scored in four separate ones" - no issues
• "At the 1958 FIFA World Cup, Pelé was at the time the youngest player to participate in a World Cup" - as this is supported by the Mukherjee source (#9) rather than by the FIFA one (#10), I think it would be better to have #9 inline in the body as well as attached to the note.
  • Placed inline as well. –S
• Spot check on "He finished the tournament with six goals, behind a record-breaking Just Fontaine, and was named best young player of the tournament" - not all supported by the cited page.
  • The source does show that he won best young player and came second in the Golden Boot race. That being said, I've added another source specifically to support the fact that Just Fontaine broke the record for most goals. –S
• "he was nicknamed O Rei (The King)" - I'm not seeing support for this in the cited source.
  • Added another source to support this. –S
• Spot check on "emerged as a worldwide black sporting star" - no issues.
• Spot check on "scored his final international goal on 11 July 1971 against Austria, and made his final appearance for Brazil against Yugoslavia on 18 July 1971." - no issues
• "Pelé is widely regarded as one of the greatest football players of all time and was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century." - seems a fair statement given the Olympics source which provides next inline citation, and the following sources cited.
• Spot check on "included in the Time list of the 100 most important people of the 20th century," - no issues. It really was by Kissinger.
  • I also did a double take when I first saw that. –S

• Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I accepted the changes to the list suggested by scripts about hyphens/dashes and replacing curly quotes with straight - please check, and revert if required.
  • Changes are fine, thanks. –S
• I see there have been a couple of recent changes to the article. I think the restoration on 13 July is reasonable.
  • The editor had added non-full international appearances which, to my understanding, are never included in these sorts of lists. –S
• "remains Brazil's youngest ever goalscorer"/"seven international hat-tricks, the most of any Brazilian player"/"He is the only footballer to have won three World Cups and is one of only five players, the others being Uwe Seeler, Miroslav Klose, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Lionel Messi, to have scored in four separate ones" - these statements will possibly become outdated. Consider rephrasing (e.g. to the effect "As of 2024, ...")
  • I think "remains Brazil's youngest ever goalscorer" is fine as is. I've added something for the other two statements. –S
• In the Goals table, is 1–2 meant to appear between 1–1 and 2–0 in the Result column when it is sorted?
  • That's how it appears on other featured lists; is there a better way of sorting it? –S
    • That's fine then, it just didn't quite seem sequential. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• The sorting by date in the Hat-tricks table doesn't seem to work properly.
  • Fixed. –S

• Support. I'm satisfied with the responses to my comments, both about sources and general. Meets the FL criteria as far as I can see. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [15].

---

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2017)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

MPGuy2824

• "since July, 2016" remove the comma.
• Does Korea use the mdy system of writing dates?
• Their singles "Knock Knock", "Signal" and "Likey" ranked number one for three weeks each and achieved a triple crowns in 2017, while "Heart Shaker" went on to achieve a triple crown the following year.
• You can remove the row stating that '"—" denotes an episode did not air that week.' since this info appears in the 'key' table. Alternatively, you can make sure that it always sorts at the bottom.
• 'Prior to her official debut, Minseo took her first award win for "Yes".' This is begging for more explanation.
• That's all I got. Please ping me here after you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 all done. Majority of Korea related articles use mdy format. From what I can tell this seems to be the accepted format. For Minseo, there is a detailed explanation at Minseo_(singer)#2015–2017:_Pre-debut:_Superstar_K_7,_"Monthly_Yoon_Jong-shin" (last paragraph). It is also mentioned in the source. -- EN-Jungwon 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• I can't find anything specific in the MOS for dates in Korea-related articles. The date formatting seems consistent throughout the article, so ok.
• Minseo's pre-debut debut: If you can manage to put the explanation in a few words and incorporate it in that the sentence, it would be great. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Note: Korea uses YMD (e.g. 2024년 6월 6일 -> 2024 June 6). There is no established preference in the English language in Korea for MDY or DMY, although you'll often see MDY because Korea leans closer to the American side of the Anglosphere.

  My understanding is that we follow MOS:DATERET for articles without strong MOS:DATETIES (e.g. if the article is about UK–Korea ties then maybe DMY is more appropriate?). Whichever style the primary contributer to the article uses, we follow. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 I couldn't think of a good way to put an explanation there so I removed the mention of Minseo's pre-debut. I don't think it's that relevant to this list so it shouldn't become a big issue. Thanks for the review and sorry for taking so long to reply. -- EN-Jungwon 18:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824, in the Music Bank 2023 FLC you suggested that the date is the unique cell of every row and should be made into the header cell, instead of the episode number. I was thinking about it and wondered if something like this would be acceptable to make the column sort correctly. -- EN-Jungwon 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

IMO somebody looking at the wikicode would be able to understand why those particular numbers are used. So, yes, your linked diff would be acceptable. Visually, (and for screen readers) the emdashes being the header cell in rows still seems weird to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Dank

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

Image review from Staraction

• All images have alt text except for the one with Sunmi.
• All images relevant to the text
• All images captioned appropriately
• All images sourced under appropriate licenses

Thanks for your work @Jungwon and @Explicit. Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction, added alt text to Sunmi's image. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Note that I assumed good faith on machine translations and made some changes to some of the references. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [16].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1967

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's my latest nomination in this series. In this particular year, Frank Sinatra continued to be the top performer on the chart and unusually not one but two number ones did so poorly at top 40 radio that they didn't enter Billboard's pop chart, the Hot 100, at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• " "Cold" was the final number one of the year and would prove to be Gary's only Easy Listening chart-topper and his final entry on either that listing or the Hot 100" - A few sentences before this it is mentioned that Cold didn't reach the Hot100 at all.
  • @MPGuy2824: Correct, but he had other songs which did. My point is that it was his last song to appear on either chart i.e. he never charted again on either chart. If the wording could be made clearer, let me know -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Would "last entry on any Billboard chart" do? Assuming that is accurate, of course. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Trouble is then I would technically have to source that he didn't chart on any of the dozens of other charts Billboard publishes (I am reasonably certain he didn't, but technically I would need to prove his absence from every single one of them since 1968). How about something like "After Cold, he would not have another easy listening or pop chart entry".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, its a problem to prove a negative. Reading only your suggested sentence, it still sounds like the song was in the pop chart too. Since this piece of info (regarding him never being on the pop charts after 1967) isn't related to this list anyway, maybe you could leave it out OR wait for another reviewer to give a better suggestion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "In contrast to the song by the Sinatras which was both an easy listening and pop number one, two singles in 1967 reached number one on the Easy Listening chart but failed to enter the Hot 100 at all. Both "It's Such a Pretty World Today" by Andy Russell and "Cold" by John Gary were Easy Listening chart-toppers but did not achieve sufficient crossover success to even reach number 100 on the Hot 100." - A lot of overlap in these two sentences. Maybe consider a merge.
  • @MPGuy2824: - tweaked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion, since the only issue left is minor. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I changed the contentious sentence to "after it exited the Easy Listening chart he never achieved another entry on either that listing or the Hot 100". I genuinely don't believe this reads as saying that "Cold" was also a pop hit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• In 1967, Billboard magazine published a chart ... The chart, which in 1967 was entitled ... In 1967, 18 songs topped the chart based -- I think the 2nd and third instances of mentioning the year 1967 could be tweaked, or perhaps just the third instance only, since it is assumed that 18 songs topped the chart that year.
• That's all I have. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

• File:Ed Ames.JPG - uses fixed px, consider "upright"
• Images all have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review, all addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

I got nothing. Great work as always Chris! Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

• Support. I don't have any improvement suggestions. I'm satisfied that this candidate meets the FL criteria. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [17].

---

1986–87 snooker world rankings

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Hopefully those issues are now sorted. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

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

• Many thanks, Pseud 14. I made the suggested change. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

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

• Thank you, Pseud 14. I made the suggested change. Regards, 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a review, unrelated comment

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

Hey man im josh all good. I copyedited this one so the body is consistent with the new title format. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Assumed good faith on the sources that were inaccessible to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2024 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [18].

---

List of cities in Luhansk Oblast

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 04:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments from Steelkamp

• Do the raions cover the whole oblast or just part of the oblast? This should be explicitly mentioned in the second paragraph.

Fixed? Yup, I reworded it to say The eight raions that make up the oblast are Alchevsk... and Svatove raion but let me know if additional rewording is needed.

• "War in Donbas" should be changed to "war in Donbas".

Fixed

• Holubivka and Pervomaisk are disambiguation links.

Fixed

• I don't think linking City in the table is necessary as it's an everyday word as per MOS:OVERLINK.

Removed link

• The space before reference 15 should be removed as per MOS:REFSPACE.

Fixed

• Why is Luhansk in italics in the table?

Luhansk is the oblast capital so I though I'd put some distinguishing feature on it similar to how other list of cities articles put an asterisk on capitals. If it helps tho, I don't mind taking it out... I didn't really expect it to be an issue.

It's just that without a key, readers might not know why Luhansk is italicised. Also, as per MOS:TABLEKEY, I don't think italics is considered accessible. A symbol is needed instead and a key used. Given that Luhansk is already mentioned as the capital in the lead, you could just do away with italicising/using a symbol in the table altogether. Otherwise, a key and symbol are needed.

Fixed I just took it out.

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

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

Support. Steelkamp (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

In addition to the above.....

• Can't see any reason for the former names of cities to be in italics

Removed italics

• None of the image captions are complete sentences, so they should not have full stops.

Fixed

• Most of the image captions contains facts (eg "Popasna, a major railway city heavily damaged during the invasion") which are not mentioned anywhere else in the articles, so these will need to be sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Added sources

• @Steelkamp and ChrisTheDude: I think that should fix most of it. As a side-note, I'll be applying any applicable suggestions here to my other FLN List of cities in Donetsk Oblast. Let me know if there's anything else I can do and thanks for the help! :) Dan the Animator 17:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe it's my browser, but there is no black line between the header and the first row (as is between all other rows).

The table looks alright on my end (I'm using the desktop version on a Dell laptop) so could be your browser?

• I believe the columns with numbers should be aligned to the right, so it is visually easier to compare the numbers.

I aligned the two population columns and the pop. change column to the right but it leaves excessive whitespace imo. I'll leave it on for now so you can take a look but if its alright I think its actually easier to compare the numbers with center-alignment since there's less space separating them (alternatively, if there's a way to decrease the width of the columns to get rid of at least some of the empty space, that would also work for me).

• The images are great on desktop, but on mobile, it is simply more to scroll past before I get to the table (which is the most important thing in this list ofc). So I would recommend limiting the number of images (maybe only in the introduction).

Fixed? I didn't remove any images since I really think five images is fine (also there's no space in the intro/lead so that's not feasible) but I added in a link on the top of the images in the list section that mobile users can click to skip (jump to) the table directly, bypassing the images. Also tested it myself on mobile and it works fine! This type of link is usually used on other similar types of list articles too with images so this should solve the issue but let me know if there's anything else to do!

• It think the table should make clear that the Ukrainian links point to another Wikipedia language version.

Fixed? I don't disagree but I can't figure out a good way to do this. I changed the title of the column to "Name (in Ukrainian Wikipedia)" but is this be too ambiguous? (e.g., some users might be unsure whether the name is actually displayed in the Ukrainian language or if the Ukrainian names are correct (since Wikipedia, in any language, is not WP:RS)). Interested to hear your thoughts about this!

• The Commonscat template can be moved to See also, to minimize whitespace.

Fixed I just moved to the External links section instead in-line with how a lot of other articles do it.

Dajasj (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Dajasj! Let me know if there's anything else I can do with the article (also fyi I'll also be applying any suggestions here to my other FLN List of cities in Donetsk Oblast. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies!

• I am now on another laptop, and there is no issue with the top line any more, so it was my problem...

No worries! Good thing it fixed itself! ;)

• The column could be "Name in Ukrainian (Link to Ukrainian Wikipedia). It is a bit long, but that's not a big issue because other column names are also long.

After careful consideration and testing out a few different things, and also realizing that apparently there's an English Wikipedia page about the Ukrainian Wikipedia, I settled with: Name (on Ukrainian Wikipedia). My thoughts behind this: the link to Ukrainian Wikipedia says in its first line in the lead that it is a "Ukrainian-language...online encyclopedia" and its already implied that the name is in Ukrainian since its coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia so the "in Ukrainian" part is redundant imo; the blue highlighting that Wikipedia projects use to indicate links to other pages already implies that the links go to the Ukrainian Wikipedia and the word "on" is sufficient for this too I think. Let me know if this title is alright with you but just to let you know, I feel strongly that this is the best choice after thinking about it quite a bit the past few days.

• Aligning to the right looks perfect on my current screen and on mobile. You could set a "width" to these columns, so there is a max width to these columns on wider screens (where it tries to write "Population" on one line). That should limit the whitespace. Dajasj (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dajasj! After testing out the width parameter markup, turns out its better just to keep it as-is with the right alignment and no additional markup.

@Dajasj: And I think that should covers everything! Let me know if there's anything else I can do/if the article's alright now and thanks again for all the suggestions! :) Dan the Animator 04:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Dajasj: its been a few days now so please let me know if there's still anything holding up your support. Hope all's well! Dan the Animator 21:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I support, sorry for my late reply. Regarding Mattximus point below, I won't oppose if the jump link is removed, because I see this often in (featured lists), but multiple images is nevertheless annoying for mobile users (which nowadays is most of our readership). Dajasj (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Np and sounds good! I'll rmv it based on Mattximus' followup. Thanks for the support!!! :) Dan the Animator 17:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Not sure why there is a jump to table link, that can be removed (from both this table, and the one in Donetsk).

Earlier in the review, Dajasj suggested removing images due to the need to scroll a bit on mobile. I think the number of images is perfectly fine and works really well on desktop so to address those concerns, I added the jump link. I don't have a strong preference for keeping or removing the jump link so if Dajasj's alright with it, I can take it off.

• This article is quite good, but the image captions need a bit of work. The cities are not smallest, or largest, as the areas are not given. They are the most populous, or have the smallest population, or some other wording.

Fixed

• Citation for 2001 census broken for me.

Fixed? applied the same changes I made with the Donetsk list so if that one's alright now then this should be fine too.

• That's it, looks good otherwise. Mattximus (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mattximus!!! :D Let me know if there's anything else I can do! Dan the Animator 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from CMD Hello, a few comments and questions:

• The moving back and forth in chronology in the lead is a bit jarring (2022, 1977, 2020, 2014, 2022, 2016). Not suggesting strict chronology is needed, but I do think a bit more would be beneficial.

While I don't full disagree, after trying a lot of different rewordings and restructurings, I think its best to keep the arrangement mostly as-is. I did switch out the 2022 estimates with 2001 census stats per below so hopefully that helps a bit but for the rest of the lead, I think its important and more helpful for the reader to keep it organized topically/thematically (e.g. keep the sentences about military occupation from 2014 and 2022 next to each other rather than divide them with the admin. reform from 2020). With the current order, it really helps save on words while still being specific/detailed on which cities were occupied by separatists (if the admin reform is moved after, it becomes necessary to either say vaguely "most cities in the south of the oblast" or list out each city occupied individually, which is not ideal imo). Also, whatever ordering is decided here should likely be applied more or less to all the other oblasts lists so best also to take a look at those articles (like my other current FLN for List of cities in Donetsk Oblast) and consider those lists too. I'm definitely open to any ideas/changes about this tho if its decided and wouldn't be fully against the needed changes for this (I just don't think making these changes are ideal for now).

• Unclear from the lead if the "cities of regional significance" are part of the 37 count, and the exactly relationship between city settlements and raions.

Fixed? I expanded/reworded the lead a bit with more clarifying details and specifics so let me know if its more clear now.

• Probably helpful to include in the lead an explanation that the 2001 census is both the most recent and only census in independent Ukraine, although given both the Oblast and the lead stretch further into the past, is there a reason older censuses could not be included? (It would for example, give context to the 1977 change.)

Fixed added that bit about the 2001 census into the lead and switched out the 2022 estimates with the census numbers to make it flow better (I don't think this switch should be a huge issue tho since the 2022 estimates are still on the list anyways and many sources opt to use the 2001 stats, like WashPo apparently and the UN and others).

About including older censuses, I based my limiting it to two on my thorough checking of other similar FLs (an earlier reviewer Mattximus's userpage is especially helpful for this (not linking here so not to bother them)), which almost all have only two population columns, the Ukrainian language versions of these lists, most of which are already featured content and also use two pop. columns, and the recent successful FL for List of cities in New Brunswick where it wasn't an issue. I'm open to adding additional statistics if there's a compelling reason for it but I think having three pop. columns would possibly mess up the pop. change column and wouldn't be too helpful anyways (about the 1977 change for Almazna, its city status was given solely because of its importance to the local mining industry, not its population (and this is already suggested in the lead since Almazna has less than 10k ppl and falls into the "economic significance" sort of cities)). Also, I think the 2022 estimates, even if they're estimates, are still really helpful and shouldn't be replaced or considered subpar to the census data (in case it helps, this Atlantic Council piece does a great job imo saying why the estimates are alright).

• Why are the city names being implied as being sourced to Ukrainian Wikipedia (not a reliable source) when the main source for the list [19] gives Ukrainian names?

I'm guessing this is referring to the Name (on Ukrainian Wikipedia) column name. Earlier in this review, Dajasj suggested changing the then column title Name (in Ukrainian) to indicate that the Ukrainian names link to the Ukrainian Wikipedia articles. After trying out a few different titles and weighing them, I settled on the current one. Check my reply above in After careful consideration [...] the past few days to see my main reasoning behind choosing this wording and why I think it should be alright. If it helps, I'm open to adding in the 2022 estimates ref next to the column title.

CMD (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks CMD for the suggestions and great to see you here! :) Let me know if there's anything else I can do and what you think about my replies/follow-up edits. Dan the Animator 14:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: pinging in case my earlier reply didn't get through (sorry for the bother!) Dan the Animator 18:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed replies. I am unfamiliar with the way other featured lists of this type are done, if it's normal to just list one or two of the most recent then no need to challenge that consensus here. I do think the reference should be duplicated; I don't know if I understand this presentation of interwiki links, but if it is to be used the article needs to be as clear as possible that a wiki is not being used as a source. The city/raion wording is much clearer. What are your thoughts on creating a new paragraph starting from "Following the Donbas war..."?. It doesn't seem related to the first parts of that a paragraph, and at least would reduce the jumping around within paragraphs. CMD (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicated the reference per above but also changed the name again, this time adding a note which hopefully should address your and Dajasj's earlier comments (I brought the column title back to its original but I also added a note which says that the names link to Ukrainian Wikipedia articles). Take a look and let me know if this would work for everyone.

For the lead organization, thanks CMD for the suggestion! :) I tried out having it separate but it felt a bit off having four separate paragraphs in the lead (especially for this article's size) so I opted to do some more lead rewording/reorganizing to keep it at three paragraphs. It still has some time jumping within paragraphs (mostly just the middle one where it goes from the 2020 reform to the 2016 renaming) but I think the new ordering's an improvement (for the lead overall now, the chronology from start to finish is roughly 2001, 1977, 1991/2020, 2020, 2016, 2014, 2022, 2016/2020 (I don't think this last one really counts tho since it's referring to earlier parts of the lead)). Let me know if its better or if there's anything else I should do. Dan the Animator 18:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead seems improved, a bit more thematically coherent. I still do not really understand the interwiki link usage here, but looking at the MOS I can't actually find much on it, so I don't think it causes an issue with the FLCR. Aside from no alt text on the first map, the FLCR appear met with the changes. Best, CMD (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed (assuming google translate is not wildly misleading me); promoting. --PresN 00:28, 20 July 2024 (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, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [20].

---

List of inventoried conifers in the United States

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Pseud 14

• Support on prose. Found nothing that require further improvement. Another great list! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Thx much! - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Reviewed the additions and changes to the list that Dank has notified me about. No changes in my declaration above. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Pinus palustris: "A forest" OR "Forests" instead of "Forest". Also change the "have" to "has", if the singular is more appropriate. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @MPGuy2824:, in case you wanted a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. Couldn't find any other issues with the prose. A few of the ref are missing their archive links, though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: I've relied on IABot for this when I've been asked before ... I did the run and checked "Add archives to all non-dead references", and it claimed the run was successful ... but it found no references that it wanted to add archive links to. I'm not seeing any evidence here that the bot is having problems. Not sure what to do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(FWIW, it's very unlikely that https://plants.usda.gov is going to disappear without a trace anytime soon.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing support until I can go through the merged list again. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• You can rethink the "Key" section since the lists are now merged.
• It seems odd that Abies concolor "Grows best, ... in the mid-latitudes of California's Sierra Nevada.", but its distribution doesn't include California.
• Some of the "Uses" end with a full-stop, some don't. I think they should all be removed.
• Wikilink "Mississippi River states".

Going with "except for ... states bordering the river".

• "one specimen was found to be 1650 years old." It would be nice to get an online citation for this fact.
• "sometimes living 500 years or more" add an online citation for this one as well.
• "principle provider of timber" to "principal provider of timber"
• Sometimes the "Uses:" sentence is a different paragraph, sometimes not. Please make it consistent.
• Wikilink the first usage of "subalpine".

In a sortable table, either all need to be linked or none (although as a practical matter, that means it's best to find an excuse to link it once somewhere above all the rows of the table). There were two, I linked both.

• That's all I got. Please ping me here when you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Thanks, all done, but you might want to wait until I add the eastern-only species before you take another look. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Ping me here when you finish merging. I wrongly assumed you were done with that. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Okay, that's done. If it helps: the rows that were added were copied from the current version of User:Dank/List of forest-inventory conifers east of the Mississippi. (Another way to identify them is: they're the ones with no distribution data on western states.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Oops I saved the ping wrong. Repinging in case that didn't work. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I found it easier to go through a diff:

• Pinus rigida: "The wood which is resinous and rot-resistant,"
• "into baskets and drums by the Indigenous peoples of California." - Get a second opinion on this.
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion of the merged list on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My comments on List of forest-inventory conifers east of the Mississippi apply here as well. With the substantial overlap, the unusual limitation of the distribution within each list, and the fact that a division based on the Mississippi River does not appear to be in the sources, I would oppose these lists being separate FLs. List of conifers of the United States would make more sense as a title. Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Okay, that's done. For a discussion of the page title, see User talk:PresN#List of forest-inventory conifers in the United States. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This nomination has stalled out, it seems; I do think the combination of the east and west lists along with the new name are improvements. No concerns found to stop promotion, source review passed, so, promoting. --PresN 19:09, 17 July 2024 (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, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [21].

---

List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine episodes

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Drive-by - @OlifanofmrTennant image (probably) needs a caption. Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Peretti departed the series in the fourth episode of sixth season" => "Peretti departed the series in the fourth episode of the sixth season" Done
• "During the course of the seconds season" => "During the course of the second season" Done
• "which aired on September 27" => "which began airing on September 27" (the whole season didn't air on that one day) Done
• "The fourth season aired on September 20" - same again Done
• "The eighth and finale season" => "The eighth and final season" Done
• "Season one, was initially given" - no reason for that comma there Done
• Something seems to have wonky with the season one column headings Done
• "Season three aired on September 27, 2015" - as per above Done
• "The fourth season aired on September 20, 2016" - same again Done
• "The season was the final to air Fox" => "The season was the final to air on Fox" Done
• "The eight and finale season aired two episodes a week" => "The eighth and final season aired two episodes a week" Done
• Hitchcock's forename is spelt wrong in the webisodes section Done
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Adressed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Did you definitely publish all your changes? I am still seeing "Season three aired on September 27, 2015" and "The fourth season aired on September 20, 2016"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

      Yes Imissed season 3 but not season four. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

      • Still seeing "The fourth season aired on September 20, 2016". Might be worth doing another sweep and check that all the comments marked as done above were actually addressed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

        My mistake I was only looking at the lead. Addressed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

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

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

@Sgubaldo: I have addressed the above with the exception of the last one which I'm having trouble with. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

One more thing: the production codes are sourced to here, but I can't see them anywhere in the source? Sgubaldo (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo: Their there in the first row. The episode number = prod code. For instance me time is sixth episode produced fourth to air so its production code is 106. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Three more:

• Refs. 95, 96 and 142 are all missing TV by the Numbers as the website. Done
• Wikilink TV by the Numbers in Ref. 147. Done
• Refs. 165 and 166 need to comply with MOS:ALLCAPS. Done

I trust these will be done, so I'm happy to Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, this stalled out a bit... No concerns found to stop promotion, source review passed, so, promoting. --PresN 19:09, 17 July 2024 (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, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [22].

---

List of Boston Bruins seasons

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

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

  I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN Sorry, I forgot to ping you. With the "@" thing. I've made all the changes. Do you Support? XR228 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Accessibility looks good now. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 22:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. Thanks nonetheless. XR228 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "with 2023–24 season marking" => "with the 2023–24 season marking"
• "The Bruins would fare decently" => "The Bruins fared decently"
• "They would make up for the drought" => "They made up for the drought"
• " The Bruins would miss the playoffs in 1997" => " The Bruins missed the playoffs in 1997"
• "finishing with the worst record of the season with 61 points" - source?
• "ending a 29-year playoff appearance streak, the longest in NHL history" - source?
• "Throughout the next nine seasons, the Bruins would face a rough patch" => "Throughout the next nine seasons, the Bruins faced a rough patch"
• "The Bruins would start another playoff streak in 2008" => "The Bruins started another playoff streak in 2008"
• "In 2011, the Bruins would defeat the Vancouver Canucks" => "In 2011, the Bruins defeated the Vancouver Canucks"
• "but they would lose in the second round of the playoffs to the Canadiens" => "but they lost in the second round of the playoffs to the Canadiens"
• "The next season, the Bruins' playoff streak would end at seven seasons" => "The next season, the Bruins' playoff streak ended at seven seasons"
• "after failing to qualify by two points" => "after they failed to qualify by two points"
• Also, what's the source for that "two points" bit?
• "They would miss the playoffs for a second season in 2016, but qualify in 2017" => "They missed the playoffs for a second season in 2016, but qualified in 2017"
• "However, Bruins would come out on top" => "However, the Bruins came out on top "
• "They would lose in the second round of the playoffs to the Tampa Bay Lightning" => "They lost in the second round of the playoffs to the Tampa Bay Lightning"
• "The 2022–23 season, would see the Bruins make history" => "The 2022–23 season, saw the Bruins make history"
• Also, why did this make history?
• "However, they would get upset in the first round of the playoffs" => "However, they got upset in the first round of the playoffs"
• "after blowing a 3–1 series lead" - source?
• "In the 2024 playoffs, they would lose to the Panthers again" => "In the 2024 playoffs, they lost to the Panthers again"
• "From the 1926–27 season through the 1937–38 season, Boston played in the American Division." - don't think this needs to be a note as it's quite clear from the table. Maybe replace the text of this note with something like "with effect from the 1926-27 season, the NHL split into [however many] divisions because of [reasons]"
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Four of the unnecessary "would"s are still present..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed it. XR228 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• The terms in the "Key of terms and abbreviations" table aren't necessary. You can just use the {{Abbrev}} template in the header cell. e.g. W, L, T. For some of the others a footnote would do.
• Please fix "{{sronly|caption_text}}".
• The "↑" symbol isn't necessary IMO since it is always mentioned next to text stating that they "won the Stanley Cup finals vs Opponent X".
• In the result column, there is no need to mention multiple wins of the same season. Just the best win can be included. i.e. SF is better than QF, and Final is better than SF.
• Making the table sortable would involve some work, but it would be useful imo.
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I feel it is necessary to keep a full list of opponents faced in a season; all the other NHL season featured lists do it. Same goes for many of the other suggested changes. XR228 (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  With regards to point 4 - virtually all season tablea across all sports have playoff progression, rather than just whatever the best result was. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have made the appropriate changes. XR228 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Now that you've added sorting to the table, I would expect the results column to show in the following order when sorted in descending order: all the Stanley Cup final wins at the top, followed by Stanley cup final losses, followed by losses at the semi-final stage, and so on. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 I have made the changes (it is almost 1:00 a.m. and I am ready to die). XR228 (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. If interest and time permit (after you get up), please take a look at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the Support. I think your nom looks good. XR228 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

No concerns found to stop promotion, source review passed, so, promoting. --PresN 19:09, 17 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [23].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Botswana

Nominator(s): 48JCL 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC) and Tone 15:21 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

MPGuy2824

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

  • Add a centered emdash when an image isn't available. This isn't done yet.
  • "of kgosi (king) Khama III" - Should kgosi be capitalised? I'm in two minds.

  Please ping me here when you are done with these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  We are never using emdash in these lists when there is no image. I prefer to keep that consistent. As for kgosi, the article uses not capitalized but italic, which I will fix now. Tone 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824, kgosi should not be capitalized (since it is merely a word, you do not say "so there is a King", you say "so there is a king") and as Tone mentioned above, the emdash is not used in lists where there is no image. 48JCL 12:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  • kgosi or Kgosi: In this case the right equivalent would be "King Charles is", not "king Charles is".
  • emdash when there is no image: I've been asked to do this before during FL nominations, so we do this for lists. I take your point that it isn't used for the WHS lists, so you can skip this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

    MPGuy2824 done all 48JCL 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

    Support on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Some references use |website=UNESCO World Heritage Centre and some use |publisher=UNESCO World Heritage Centre. I checked other world heritage site FLs, and they use the publisher parameter. So I suggest changing all the |website=UNESCO World Heritage Centre to |publisher=UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

done

• |language=en is unnecessary for english sources.

Removed per other flcs

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

Support -- EN-Jungwon 01:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Ah, you already nominated it, I thought you were planning to do it a bit later. Let me go through in a couple of days to check if there are any further tweaks from my side. As a side note, my typical cutoff for nominations are three sites on the main list, but maybe we can go to two because there are several tentative sites. --Tone 15:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from CMD

• This is a short list, but is complete. The prose on the main list reads well. Taking a close look at the description for the two primary entries, they are written in their own words despite only having one source. The lead is short, but that is likely related to the small size of the list and it defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
• On the tentative list, there are a few noticeable prose issues. I am not sure where "who coexist peacefully with the nature" comes from and it reads as reductive. "roam the place" does not read that professionally. It should not be implied that the "tuli elephant" is a species. I would also not pipe Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape, as the redirect does not help that much and an article could be (should be, probably) created there. The description for Gcwihaba Caves should probably be rewritten. I can't figure out the meaning of "The area is resembled through its stone age to historic sites. The region includes Acheulean tools, along with middle and late stone age tools". All said however, there are not part of the main list, so I'm not sure whether to give them equal weight, so tentatively support. If they could be given similar care to the main two entries, that would make it a clearer pass. CMD (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am still going through the prose of the tentative sites, give me a couple of days ;) Tone 06:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In the UNESCO database it is called the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape 48JCL 12:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the text to accurately describe what is the point. It is a proposed extension to the already listed site which is in South Africa. I will fix the remaining descriptions very soon, and then the article should be fine ;) Tone 13:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, all text is fixed, please continue with the review. Tone 22:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, great improvement. I can see how the lead might be longer ala Madagascar, and am not sure about the emdash use mentioned above, but those may be improvements beyond the FLCR, changing to support. Best, CMD (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool turns up no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Giants2008, is this a support? If not, are there any concerns on prose that need to be addressed? 48JCL 23:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    • The sources were the only thing I looked at, so I'm not in a position to offer a full support for the FLC. I'll leave declarations to the other reviewers so I can keep the ability to close the FLC down the line, which I can't do after a support. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Image Review by Fritzmann

• File:Animals Rock Art Tsodilo.jpg is a credible own-work that is properly licensed.
• File:Okavango Delta.jpg is a credible own-work that is properly licensed as CC4.0.
• File:Gnus zebras chobe national park.jpg is a credible own-work in the public domain.
•  Done File:KubuIsland 02.jpg is an import from Flickr listed as GNU Free License, but a look at the Flickr page says All Rights Reserved, and the image was not released under GNU or CC. I don't think this is licensed correctly on Commons. I recommend replacement with File:Baobabs on Kubu island, Botswana.jpg, which is properly licensed as CC2.0.
• File:Okavango Delta.jpg is a credible own-work that is properly licensed as CC3.0 and GNU Free.

Just one image with an issue, please ping when you have seen and responded. Thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 14:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Fritzmann, mark it as  Done. — 48JCL 15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good, support. Fritzmann (message me) 15:48, 15 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [24].

---

List of constituencies of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

• "As of 2001, it comprises 230 members" - 2001 was more than 20 years ago, so the present tense is not appropriate. Surely there is more up-to-date info available?
• "The 2011 census of India stated that the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes constitute a significant portion of the population of the state" => "The 2011 census of India stated that the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes constituted a significant portion of the population of the state" (past tense, as 2011 was more than 10 years ago). I presume more up-to-date data has not been published?
• "After the independence of India in 1947, the then province of the Central Provinces and Berar, along with a number of princely states merged with the Indian Union, and became a new state" => "After the independence of India in 1947, the then province of the Central Provinces and Berar, along with a number of princely states, merged with the Indian Union and became a new state"
• "The number of constituencies of the legislative assembly of this state was 184. 127 constituencies were single-member, and 48 constituencies were double-member" => "The number of constituencies of the legislative assembly of this state was 184, of which 127 were single-member and 48 were double-member"
• "Madhya Pradesh was reorganized on 1 November 1956, following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. It was created by merging the old Madhya Pradesh state, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal states." => "Madhya Pradesh was reorganized on 1 November 1956, following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, merging the old Madhya Pradesh state, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal states."
• I notice that you use both the US spelling "recognized" and the UK spelling "recognised". I don't know which is the correct spelling in Indian English but whichever it is should be used in all cases.
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Switched from "As of 2001," to "From 2001," which is what I meant. I can clarify/reword that statement further, if required.
  • I assume you mean reorganized, not recognized. I've switched to the spelling used in the name of the act: "Reorganisation", which is the UK one. There is still one instance of "Reorganization", but that is from the title of a paper by two US authors.
  • The 2021 census of India hasn't yet taken place. 2011 is the latest completed census.
  • Fixed the rest. Thanks for the review, ChrisTheDude. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive by comments

• This is my first time commenting on FLC, so please take this with a grain of salt.
• Alt text missing for File:Madhyapradesh Legislative Assembly.jpg and File:Wahlkreise zur Vidhan Sabha von Madhya Pradesh.svg.
• "The 2011 census of India stated that the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes constituted a significant portion of the population of the state, at 15.6% and 21.1% (ref) respectively." Ref could be placed at the end of sentence, per MOS:PF.
• The text in History section is unreferenced. Is there any particular reason for this, considering the History section for articles on Mizoram and Tripura are referenced? Nitro Absynthe (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Nitro Absynthe: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "After the split, 90 of them were assigned to the new state (Chhattisgarh), while the remaining 230 composed the reduced Madhya Pradesh legislative assembly." don't think you need while in this sentence. Flows better without it
• Does the constituencies table not need a symbol to go along with the colour? For visually impaired users.
• Is ref 24, covering the constituencies table? Because it's not clear what's referencing that table at the moment

Looks good to me apart from the above comments. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• I feel that the 230 number (in the cell next to it) needs to be explained. I've removed the explanation for where the 90 seats went. See if this wording works better.
• The color is always along with the texts SC or ST, which is why a separate symbol isn't needed IMO. I can add these abbreviations to the legend if you think that it would help.

• Yes, if you could make that change, that would help a lot. I didn't realise that, so clarifying it will help readers. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 24 does have the current list of constituencies, but ref 28 has the same list, as well as the updated number of electors from 2023 (the latest election). I've put that in the header cell for the electors column.

@NapHit: Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Issues have been fixed and just a minor one to fix, so I'm happy to support. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Ref 6 – Could you add |via=Google books
• Ref 7, 12, and 15 – Remove "Election Commision of India" from the title and move it to the publisher field. I also note that all of the other references from the commision include |url-access=limited.
• Ref 22 – Link is dead, mark as such
• Ref 24 – No publisher listed

Other than that, I don't believe I have any criticisms. Please ping me when these have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Aargh, the Election Commission of India (ECI), in its infinite wisdom, has changed the urls for the delimitation reports. I've updated the relevant refs, but it will not be possible to archive these new urls due to the geo-restriction that the ECI has put on them. For ref 24, I've put Gazette of India as the publisher, but it could be argued that it should be Delimitation Commission of India instead. Fixed the rest. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [25].

---

Peter Capaldi filmography

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC), Rusted AutoParts

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

Comments

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

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

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

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

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

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

Image review from Dylan620

There's only one image, but I still figured an image review would be beneficial.

• Alt text should probably be added. Maybe something to indicate that it's a headshot of Capaldi?
• Encyclopedic value is obvious, as the image provides identification of Capaldi.
• Sourcing for the image checks out.
• The image is appropriately licensed under Creative Commons.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: added alt text. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you OlifanofmrTennant, looks good to me now. Support. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 20 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

1. Refs 7, 38, 120 – Shift the title from all caps to title case Done
2. Refs 13, 14, 17, 24, 27 – Change TVGuide to TV Guide instead (consistency with other refs / matches target)Done
3. Ref 40 – Add publish date Done
4. Ref 43 – Fix author name, it's Eleanor Bley Griffiths, not Eleanor Griffiths Bley Done
5. Refs 43, 44, 80, 130 – These targets are redirects to another target, which is actually live, but the URL used should be updated to not be a redirect Done
6. Refs 49, 88, 163 – Source is dead, mark it as such Done
7. Ref 51 – Add author Done
8. Ref 53, 59, 64, 79, 114, 115, 156, 158 – I believe these should be BBC Genome Project instead of BBC Genome Done
9. Ref 75 – Wikilink to The Daily Telegraph for consistency with refs 117 and 152 Done
10. Ref 82 – Uses a generally unreliable source, can we sub this out for another ref instead? Done
11. Ref 85 – Wikilink The Observer and add author Done
12. Ref 92 – Wikilink The Guardian Done
13. Ref 110 – Add publish date Done
14. Ref 129 – Change from Doctor Who TV to BBC Done
15. Ref 140 – Add publish date and author Done
16. Ref 146 – Change WhatsOnStage -> WhatsOnStage.com Done
17. Ref 152 – Add author Done
18. Ref 170 – Currently displaying an errorDone
19. For the television table, change the abbreviation to "Refs." and the hover to "References", to reflect that there's more than one reference in the column for some of these Done

That's what I've got for now, please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts, @OlifanofmrTennant: I have no idea what's been done and what hasn't been. Additionally, responses should be made after reviewer's replies, not in line. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like several things listed were done but not marked off. I would go to do the fix and it was already done. As for my responses I had been doing them in a reply like this ({{Done}}) but it seems someone edited them. Rusted AutoParts 18:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Its preferred to avoid the usage of templates in FLC reviews. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Collection of the responses me and Rusted Auto Parts gave: Ref 163 contained a typo, its been fixed. Ref 85 already had an author. Ref 170 Switched cite book to standard URl cite as it's not necessarily linking directly to a copy of the book, more so linking access to it via subscription. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So have all my comments been addressed @Rusted AutoParts and @OlifanofmrTennant? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Not yet Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:36, 11 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [26].

---

List of masters of Trinity College, Cambridge

Nominator(s): IntGrah (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nominating for featured list because...

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

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

Comments

• Might be worth mentioning at the start that Trinity is part of the University of Cambridge
• "In 1546, Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII, from merging the colleges of Michaelhouse and King's Hall" => "In 1546, Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII, merging the colleges of Michaelhouse and King's Hall"
• " then Warden of King's hall" - shouldn't hall have a capital H, like in the previous sentence?
• "The Façade of the building" - facade isn't a proper noun so it doesn't need a capital
• "Arthur Blomfield expanded the west wing of lodge" => "Arthur Blomfield expanded the west wing of the lodge"
• Great Court is linked twice in the lead
• (Aside) was the second master known informally as Bill Bill? ;-)
• "Vice-Chancellor (1548)" - probably worth making it explicit that he (and others who held this role) was VC of Cambridge, not of some other institution
• That's what I got. Great work! In fact it's inspired me to get out of my comfort zone of music and football and work on a similar article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Done (UoC)
  • Done (Merging the colleges)
  • Done (King's Hall)
  • Done (façade)
  • Done (the lodge)
  • Done (Great Court)
  • Not done (Bill Bill)—Very funny
  • Done (Vice-Chancellor) Wrote "Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge" for each entry. Also did the same for St John's College, Cambridge and Jesus College, Cambridge, which have Oxford colleges of the same name.

  IntGrah (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

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

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

Done Thanks for spotting; it was a mistake made when switching from Wikilinks to Sortname templates.

Done Row scopes are attached to the names

Done Names now match article titles.

IntGrah (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

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

MPGuy2824

• "appointmented" to "appointed" OR rewrite the sentence to "The role is an official appointment by the monarch, at the recommendation of the college, ..."
• Some stats about the shortest and longest tenure would be nice in the lead.
• I'll reiterate PresN's point about having a primary cell for each row. I'd recommend the name cell.
• According to [27] William Bill stopped being master of St. John's in 1551, so you can remove the "?" after that year. In the same cell, remove the full stop at the end since this isn't a complete sentence.
• The empty ref column for the second William Bill stint looks odd. You can re-cite the earlier ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Done (appointed) I think the version "The role is an official appointment by the monarch..." doesn't allow for the fact that it is only ceremonial nowadays.
• Partially done I added a bit about Richard Bentley, since his long tenure is significant. (He was charged twice by the fellows, but held the role. The first sentencer died, and the second sentence was meant to be executed by the vice-master, whom he was a friend of.) I didn't think it was interesting enough to talk about the shortest term of office though.
• I already have | scope="row" |{{Sortname|First|Last}} on each table row, is that enough, or is there a another way to mark these as primary?
• Done (Bill Bill)
• Done (Empty ref)

IntGrah (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Instead of | scope="row" | it should be ! scope="row" | -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure? I didn't see this in other featured lists, and I think putting the picture first is better in this case. I made a test edit for now, but I am under the impression that | scope=... is sufficient for screenreader software. Please correct me if I'm wrong. IntGrah (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: Thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It has to be a !. The reason is that, for wikicode, ! means a header cell, and | means a regular cell. Scope tags only work on header cells (since they're identifying the header cell for the row). Note, though, that the header cell, oddly, doesn't actually need to be the first cell in the row, so if you want the picture column to be the first one then that's fine. I personally don't like the look, but it's not invalid. --PresN 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the highlighted effect on the header cell looks weird when it is the second column. Is the current state fine then? (With the name as the header column) IntGrah (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I think it is fine now with the name as the first column (+ header). Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

UC

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

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

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I went through each of your points and didn't disagree with any of them:

• "fionaholland" appears in a <meta name="author" content="fionaholland"/> tag in the HTML. I think it's safe to say that Fiona Holland is the author, so I spelt out her name properly.
• Replaced DNB and ODNB web citations with with ODNB templates
• I summarised the Bentley feud by dropping the details of the trials – that can be read on the main article.

IntGrah (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: I've made a few fairly trivial edits with matters too minor to hold up the process. Nice work. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Birth and death columns need column scopes
• All of the portraits need alt text added for accessibility
• There's a lot of opportunity for more wikilinks in the references you've used. Try to add more where possible, including converting websites listed as the publisher to the actual article that relates to that website.
• The page displays a script warning for issues related to {{cite encyclopedia}}, which means it's like an issue with a usage of {{Acad}}, as that's a wrapper template of the encyclopedia template. Please resolve the issue(s).

That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when these have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging nominator, @IntGrah. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the comments. I'm away for a few days but I will get round to it eventually. :) IntGrah (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh done … maybe. I am not sure how to fix the script warnings (I don't see any red text). Is it even there? But the other stuff: done! IntGrah (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@IntGrah: These types of references aren't my forte, but I narrowed it down to the usage of {{acad}} and the |doi-broken-date parameter. I don't know the exact resolution, but I wanted to at least set you on the right path. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Thanks for pointing me in the direction; I fixed some of the dois on {{Cite ODNB}} and removed the broken date warnings – hopefully nothing else is wrong. I checked the {{acad}} references and couldn't find any issues (there's only two params – what could possibly go wrong?) IntGrah (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Good news is there's no longer any citation errors. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 16:15, 15 July 2024 (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, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [28].

---

List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments by MPGuy2824

• Add a "(pictured in <year>)" for Danny Wuerffel since it seems to be from much later in his life. Check the same for the other images as well.

• I just added the feature to all images for consistency-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• You can remove the bolding from the image captions, since the information is already present in the table.
• Support promotion as the above are minor issues, and the first nomination was closed just before I indicated my support there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• I think "The Football Academic All-America Team Member of the Year is the annual most outstanding singular college football athlete of the set of American football athletes selected for the Academic All-America Teams in a given year." would be a more grammatically correct opening
  • swapped in. Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "collegiate athletic competition (known as division)s" - why is the s outside the bracket?
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "For each division, a set of eight districts were delinieated." - the subject is "set", which is singular, so the verb should be singular ("was"). Also, "delineated" is spelt incorrectly
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "For the NCAA Division I-level teams, the 2021–22 districts were as follows" - is more up to date info not available?
  • Up to and including 21-22 used a set of districts. Afterwards, districts were cast aside. I have tried to revise the text to better clarify this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "In 2022, the All-district selection process" - previously you had a capital D in "All-District"?
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "In addition, Tennis and Swimming & Diving were added" - none of these sports are proper nouns so they do not need capital letters
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Also, the qualifying G.P.A. was raised" - please write whatever GPA stands for in full with the abbreviation in brackets. I for one have no idea what a "GPA" is
  • Fixed for singular use.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "was held separately for the college and University Divisions" - inconsistent capitalisaion
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "From each team one winner for each sport was chosen from both the college and University Divisions" - and again here
  • Got it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Thus, all twelve Academic All-American teams (Men's and women's basketball" - men's does not need a capital M
  • OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "had one Academic All-American of the Year each of its divisions" => "had one Academic All-American of the Year for each of its divisions"
  • Done-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "while in some sports Two-Year College, Canadian Institutions" - none of these words need capitals apart from "Canadian"
  • Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "into the districts for the other 4 sets" => "into the districts for the other four sets"
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "only Rob Zatechka had earned this award for Nebraska" => "only Rob Zatechka has earned this award for Nebraska"
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "amd Mac Jones (2020–21)" - "and" is spelt wrong
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "all earned the ovearll award" - "overall" is spelt wrong
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Two-time Winners" - "winners" doesn't need a capital
  • I disagree. This is where title case is appropriate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Why do you have the notes for the winning players within that section yet the notes to the "winners by school" get their own sub-heading? Just move them into the section with the table.
  • OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Also, none of the notes to the "Schools with multiple awards" section are complete sentences, so they should not have full stops.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • User:ChrisTheDude all done except for the disagreement on title case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Staraction

• Image review passed
  • All images have alt text
  • All images appropriately licensed (AGF on own work)
  • Images relevant to the text
  • Captions suggestion: instead of formatting with multiple lines, perhaps write a little prose? For instance, "Justin Herbert in 2021, who was the winner in 2018 and 2019". Otherwise, looks good.
• Some prose comments
  • "For Division I, Justin Herbert is the most recent repeat winner." -> "Justin Herbert is the most recent repeat winner in Division I."
    • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Before the College Division was divided, its repeat winners included David Gubbrud, Chris Hatcher and Corte McGuffey repeated." -> "Before the College Division was divided, its repeat winners included David Gubbrud, Chris Hatcher and Corte McGuffey."
    • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The Football Academic All-America Team Member of the Year is the annual most outstanding singular college football athlete of the set of American football athletes selected for the Academic All-America Teams in a given year." -> "The annually-awarded Football Academic All-America Team Member of the Year is the most outstanding singular college football athlete selected for the Academic All-America Teams in a given year."
    • Very helpful.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The Academic All-America program recognizes combined athletic and academic excellence of the nation's top student-athletes because the All-America teams and team members of the year are selected based on excellence in both classroom achievement and athletic competition performance by the College Sports Communicators (CSC, known before the 2022–23 school year as College Sports Information Directors of America, or CoSIDA)." -> "Selected based on excellence in both classroom achievement and athletic competition performance by the College Sports Communicators (CSC, known before the 2022–23 school year as College Sports Information Directors of America, or CoSIDA), the Academic All-America program recognizes combined athletic and academic excellence of the nation's top student-athletes".
    • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work @TonyTheTiger! Let me know if you have any questions / concerns. Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Support on images & prose. Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 16:15, 15 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [29].

---

Detroit Lions draft picks (1970–present)

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This list is based on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present), which was promoted June 3, 2024. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and as part of what I hope to be my first featured topic. This is part 3 of 4 of my work in progress featured topic, which is centered on the recently promoted Detroit Lions draft history. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

• Support having developed the template for this list, I can state my outright support, as I don't see any deviations and my review did not pick-up any issues. That said, Hey man im josh, any reason for not including the Pride of the Lions in addition to Pro Football Hall of Famers? I'm not very familiar with their ring of honor or Detroit players in general, so more a curiosity than a request. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Gonzo fan2007: Thank you so much for the review and your support (and the format which I obviously store)! I was torn on whether to include the Pride of the Lions, but I opted not to do so for several reasons. One of which is that it does not currently have its own standalone article, though I'm working on solving that. Another reason is that there's currently only 20 people in the Lions' ring of honor, of which 15 are in the HOF, whereas the Packers, as of 2023, had 168 people inducted into their hall, making it more common to have people in their hall but not in the HOF. This part is also more based on "feels", but it feels like the Lions are still catching up on who should/shouldn't be included as well. You'll note that the Pride/ring of honor started in 2009 with the induction of 12 players already in the PFHOF. Again, this is just feels, but it doesn't feel properly representative of franchise legends at this point in time when it leaves out legends such as Herman Moore, Calvin Johnson, Dominic Raiola, and Wayne Walker. They went for the big names right away, but they're still working on better representing the franchise and expanding the ring from my POV. So, tl;dr – feels. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

I plan to do an image review in the very near future (probably once I'm finished with a source spotcheck I'm currently conducting for an FAC), but I did a quick skim of the captions and a couple of them seem... odd.

• "Da'Shawn Hand was the Lions' -round selection in the 19 draft."
• "Matthew Stafford was selected first overall in the 2009 Main article: 2009 NFL draft draft."

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Ugh, those were embarrassing oversights @Dylan620. I've fixed those. The Da'Shawn Hand one was due to not filling out the cookie cutter template I was using for images. The Stafford one was a copy and paste mistake. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: No worries, happens to all of us! I've finished the image review:

• The images are noticeably concentrated in the span of drafts from 2007 onward. I acknowledge that many of the articles for the earlier draft picks don't have any images, but there are some that do and I think it would be beneficial to include images of, say, Dennis Franklin (if you're willing to use a sixth-round pick), Bill Bowerman (tenth-round pick, and the quality isn't great, but it may be worth considering), James Jones, Boss Bailey, and/or Roy Williams.
• I'm having a hard time verifying the source for the photo of Steve Baack. I want to just AGF but "Detroit Lions individual game picture" (listed as the source on the Commons description page) is awfully vague.
• According to this, the Andre Ware photo is copyrighted by the University of Houston, which contradicts the statement on the Commons description page that the file is in the public domain. It is entirely possible that the university changed the copyright status after the file was uploaded to Commons in November 2009, but in the interest of playing it better safe than sorry, I recommend replacing this image with File:Sports Analyst, Commentator & ESPN personality Andre Ware (7172160524).jpg.
• I don't want to say this, but I feel like it's my duty as an image reviewer to do so, even if it's at the risk of sounding prudish... the current photo for Jason Hanson kind of looks like he's... erm... now obviously that isn't actually what he's doing but File:Jason Hanson kickoff cropped.jpg would be more suitable imo.
• Some captions say what year the photo was taken, while others don't – I believe this should be standardized.

Everything else looks good. I've verified the sourcing for all of the other images (including the Ware and Hanson ones that I've suggested as replacements and the images currently used in the articles for the players listed in the first bullet), each image contributes encyclopedic value to the listicle, alt text is consistently employed, and all images (except for possibly the ones of Baack and Ware) are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The images are noticeably concentrated in the span of drafts from 2007 onward. – This was indeed a problem, but I took what I could for each year.
• I acknowledge that many of the articles for the earlier draft picks don't have any images, but there are some that do and I think it would be beneficial to include images of, say, Dennis Franklin (if you're willing to use a sixth-round pick), Bill Bowerman (tenth-round pick, and the quality isn't great, but it may be worth considering), James Jones, Boss Bailey, and/or Roy Williams. – So, I was open to using the photos of anybody if there was one available for that year. What I tried to avoid doing was adding images that contained non-Lions players or players that were Lions but are wearing the jerseys of other teams. I struggled a bit with this, but I felt given the focus of the article, it was better not to show Lions' draftees wearing other other NFL team's jerseys
• I'm having a hard time verifying the source for the photo of Steve Baack. I want to just AGF but "Detroit Lions individual game picture" (listed as the source on the Commons description page) is awfully vague. – Fair point. I think it's a sick photo, but we obviously have too many questions about it to include.
• According to this, the Andre Ware photo is copyrighted by the University of Houston, which contradicts the statement on the Commons description page that the file is in the public domain. It is entirely possible that the university changed the copyright status after the file was uploaded to Commons in November 2009, but in the interest of playing it better safe than sorry, I recommend replacing this image with File:Sports Analyst, Commentator & ESPN personality Andre Ware (7172160524).jpg. – Bummer, another photo I really liked, but I'm not finding any internet archives to verify that the copyright was what's listed at commons at the time. Replaced the image, per your suggestion, but I used a cropped version of that image.
• I don't want to say this, but I feel like it's my duty as an image reviewer to do so, even if it's at the risk of sounding prudish... the current photo for Jason Hanson kind of looks like he's... erm... now obviously that isn't actually what he's doing but File:Jason Hanson kickoff cropped.jpg would be more suitable imo. – Do you have a different image suggestion? Jason Hanson is quite the franchise legend, and I tried to avoid showing players from the back when possibly.
• Some captions say what year the photo was taken, while others don't – I believe this should be standardized. – I typically only did this for instances where an image shows a person who's not currently in playing shape/attire. Unfortunately it's difficult to determine the year in a lot of instances. If I had it my way, it would be players in Lions gear the entire way through with no years being necessary to state. But I felt it better to include images of the players in their 60s as opposed to vast parts with no images at all.

Thanks for the feedback @Dylan620. I don't typically include a ton of images, but I tried to include a lot in this instance. I aimed to prioritize pictures of players in Lions apparel, then focused on simply including an image at all. I tried to avoid including images of players wearing jerseys of other teams, given the focus, and avoided group shots or cropped them when I could. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure Josh – you make reasonable points, though in keeping with where an image shows a person who's not currently in playing shape/attire I would encourage you to add the year to the photo of Leon Crosswhite. As for Hanson, I've tried my hand at a crop – what do you think? There are presently only two images of Hanson on Commons (excluding the crop), and a search for Flickr uploads under compatible licensing came up dry. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the catch with Crosswhite @Dylan620, I've made that fix. I've also taken your advice and used a cropped version of the image for Jason Hanson, though I went with File:Detroit Lions placekicker Jason Hanson at the 2012 Lions training camp (cropped 2).jpg. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Josh. I note that the Baack photo is still in the listicle, and while I agree with you that it's a great photo (indeed, it reminds me of an old newspaper clipping, and that gives it an antiquated charm), I unfortunately still think the photo should be removed, since I haven't been able to verify the sourcing or copyright status. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Woops, taken care of the Baack photo @Dylan620. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we're good to go – support! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Support - nothing that I can think of that requires further improvement after my read and is aligned with similar FLs. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the lookover! Every extra set of eyes is a benefit :) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Suggest changing "Since 1970, two players drafted by the Lions have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" to "Two players since 1970 drafted by the Lions have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame", as the previous wording could indicate that two players drafted before 1970 have been inducted since 1970
• That's it I think - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I've rephrased it to "Two players drafted by the Lions since 1970 have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" – Is this acceptable? Thank you very much for taking a look and providing feedback, I very much appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's actually exactly what I meant to put but I see now that I messed up the copy and paste :-D Now more than happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Driveby from Queen of Hearts

per MOS:ORDER, the images should be below the {{main}} on each section. Queen of Hearts ^talk 22:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Damn. @Queen of Hearts, I moved the images below {{main}} because having that template above the images moved the images down, which messed with the spacing a bit. Images start on the next line instead of the same line (visually) with how it's currently set up. I'll definitely fix it on Monday when I'm on PC again, but do you have any suggestions on how to deal with that? Hey man im josh (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Queen of Hearts, I think you are misreading the MOS. Unless I am missing something, the section you are referencing is Section #1 in MOS:ORDER, which has hatnotes as #3 and images as #10 in the placement order. However, Section #1 in MOS:ORDER is only referencing the placement of different things Before the article content. This placement is important to make sure everything shows up in the right place at the beginning of the article, such as not having hatnotes be placed after the infobox. Section #2 in MOS:ORDER covers the placement of different things within the Article content. The part you are referencing is clearly the article content, and Section #2 says nothing about the placement of hatnotes relative to images. Hey man im josh, unless I am missing something, this change should not be made. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Schminnte

Did someone say source review? Sources are reliable for information cited, references are formatted consistently with dates all to MDY and consistent links, and all references are archived.

Onto spotchecks:

• 1, 10, 14, 16, 32, 40, 49 and 59 are all passes.
• 5 and 6 are passes, but just verify the same thing. Do we need both?
• Ditto above for 7, 8 and 9 (why was 6 afraid of 7?), why do we need three sources for an uncontroversial claim?
• 18 is a partial pass, but does not verify The Lions have taken part in every modern NFL draft since 1970. Is this a SKYISBLUE situation?
• Am I missing something on 33, because I see no mention of any of the "Pro teams"?

No quibbles on prose. Will be happy to support after concerns are addressed, nice work. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 21:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• 5 and 6 are passes, but just verify the same thing. Do we need both? – I used to have just one reference for this fact, but I eventually found one I felt was better and tacked it on instead of replacing it, which is probably what I should have done. Better to use DAZN as the source over Ford Field themselves, so I've removed the reference to Ford Field's site from this article as well as six others, all of which used two refs instead of one for this.
• Ditto above for 7, 8 and 9 (why was 6 afraid of 7?), why do we need three sources for an uncontroversial claim? – It's more to do with the fact that it's common name is the "NFL Draft" whereas it's actual name is officially the "NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting", a name that it's rarely actually called. Prior to working on the series of draft articles I actually had no idea that this was a thing. I've removed one of the refs, but I'd prefer to leave two for this case if you don't mind.
• 18 is a partial pass, but does not verify The Lions have taken part in every modern NFL draft since 1970. Is this a SKYISBLUE situation? – SKYISBLUE to me isn't the same as SKYISBLUE to everyone else, and I may have blind spots because of it. While I was trying to avoid re-using another PFR source, I'm going to do so here, which means the other source I have from The Sporting News becomes redundant, so it's been removed.
• Am I missing something on 33, because I see no mention of any of the "Pro teams"? – Good catch, thank you for that. I've added a reference to the Pro Football Hall of Fame which calls out the teams they were on in brackets. It only lists Oklahoma, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh instead of the full team names, but hopefully this is enough given the context of it being a draft of CFL and USFL players and those city names only coinciding with one team each

Thank you for the review @Schminnte! I hope all of your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, I think all the concerns above are resolved. Happy to support promotion. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:52, 5 July 2024 (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) 21:09, 14 July 2024 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [30].

---

List of Jacksonville Jaguars seasons

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

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

Pseud 14

• No issues with prose in the lead. I do think "winningest" is a bit informal, perhaps consider tweaking that in the caption.
• I think the image placement needs to be redone. Perhaps move Tom's image under the "Seasons" section so it doesn't overcrowd your lead. (similar to the other FLs of Detroit and New Orleans). Seems File:Tom Coughlin crop.jpg is a much better image. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Pseud 14: Thank you for suggestion that image, I've replaced it in the article and moved it under the season section, per your suggestion. I've also tweaked the caption. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Jaguars are one of four teams to have never played in a Super Bowl" - I'd change this to "The Jaguars are one of four current NFL teams to have never played in a Super Bowl" as there are plenty of other teams that have never played in a Super Bowl.
• "Despite never having played in a Super Bowl, the team has played in the AFC Championship Game on three occasions (1996, 1999, and 2017)" - I'd be tempted to reframe this as "The team has played in the AFC Championship Game on three occasions (1996, 1999, and 2017) but lost each time"
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Took your advice on both, done! Thank you very much for the feedback :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "The team plays its home games at EverBank Stadium in Central Jacksonville." The ref after this does not support this statement. Also, it should probably be "central".
• Wikilink the first instance of "playoffs".
• Is there a reason that the 1995 row is set to sort at the top?
• Sorting by the "Finish" column leads to some weird stuff happening with the "All-time regular & postseason record" columns. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: I prepped this list so long ago and I clearly should have given it a better lookover since I prepped it when I Was much less experienced than I am now. All of the sorting issues have been resolved and I've added a wikilink at the first instance of playoffs. I've also actually updated their location to "downtown Jacksonville" with a reference. Thank you very much for the review and feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Some of the keys (T-#, Pct, ‡Super Bowl champions and *Conference champions) aren't applicable to this team/list and can be removed unless you are keeping them in for consistency with other similar lists.
  • Is "at" a common abbreviation for "against" in the Hand Egg world? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

    I hid those portions of the key, thanks for that suggestion @MPGuy2824. The "at" is a standard descriptor in most North American sports from what I'm aware of. It's meant to represent that the game was not a home game. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Dajasj

• Do the bottom three rows (the Totals) really need to be double bold?
• I understand why you do it, but I think it would be simpler if you only link to the page of the team of that season, and not the season page (so skip the first column). A reader can still reach it through the team page and it makes the table smaller which is great for mobile.
• I also understand why you included League and Conference, but I would only do that when there are different values. Now it makes the table more complex (and I expect a row to be different).
• It might be too late to change the format, but I would prefer the postseason in a seperate table. Right now, it makes the table unnecessary long (so I can compare less on my desktop screen), while only adding info to one column. Same point for Awards btw.
• I believe the Head Coach can be made sortable, so you can sort to get the season with the most wins for a head coach.
• I have not used it myself so I am not sure of the downsides, but excluding the final rows from sorting would be great. Dajasj (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dajasj:

  • Do the bottom three rows (the Totals) really need to be double bold? – I hadn't noticed they were doubled. It doesn't really affect anything, but it's been removed.
  • I understand why you do it, but I think it would be simpler if you only link to the page of the team of that season, and not the season page (so skip the first column). A reader can still reach it through the team page and it makes the table smaller which is great for mobile. – You say easily, but when you navigate to the season pages there's no direct links to the season themselves in many cases. I don't think this would be an improvement to the table or better serve our readers in any way.
  • I also understand why you included League and Conference, but I would only do that when there are different values. Now it makes the table more complex (and I expect a row to be different). – I disagree. The league and conference are relevant and can and have changed for a number of different NFL teams. This is part of the standard format for lists of NFL team seasons for that reason and it would be odd to have this page follow a different format than the rest.
  • It might be too late to change the format, but I would prefer the postseason in a seperate table. Right now, it makes the table unnecessary long (so I can compare less on my desktop screen), while only adding info to one column. Same point for Awards btw. – That may be your preference but I would find two separate tables, one for playoffs and one for the seasons, to be much less informative and to just be a split for the sake of splitting, not to actually make any sort of improvement. The awards column is also reserved for major awards only and isn't bulky or overwhelming in any sense.
  • I believe the Head Coach can be made sortable, so you can sort to get the season with the most wins for a head coach. – This list is focused on the seasons as opposed to the head coaches themselves. While it's not included there, it may be more appropriate for List of Jacksonville Jaguars head coaches. The difficulty in making these tables sortable be sortable in the way you suggest is that coaches sometimes have partial seasons which are split with another coach.
  • I have not used it myself so I am not sure of the downsides, but excluding the final rows from sorting would be great. – That was the intention, and it's been implemented, as per the comments in the section above.

  Thank you for the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the second point, maybe it makes more sense to merge the first column (Season) and the third (column) League? For example linking NFL to 1995 NFL season. That way you won't have to duplicate the years, and you can add a link to the NFL text that is useful. You won't lose any information. Dajasj (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dajasj: The history of the NFL involves a couple of mergers (List of Los Angeles Chargers seasons, List of New England Patriots seasons) teams joining from other leagues (List of Los Angeles Rams seasons), and several teams being independent prior to their joining of the NFL (List of Chicago Bears seasons, List of Green Bay Packers seasons). These examples are just some of the lists for seasons that have already been promoted to featured lists, but this is why these are two separate columns. That's why the information is there and why it's useful, even if to just state that they started as an NFL franchise and have been for the entirety of their existence. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm no longer suggesting complete removal. But what if we do it like this (see the link in the second column)? If I'm not mistaken, we don't lose any information, while avoiding duplication in the Year & Team column? Should also work for all teams, or I am then still missing something? Dajasj (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dajasj: You are suggesting removal of a column though. I think your proposed version is also an WP:EASTEREGG, given that you'd expect that shortcut to lead to National Football League. If you want to propose changes to all 32 team lists you'd be better off doing so at WT:NFL because, even if I agreed with the proposed changes, I don't feel comfortable making that sort of wide spread change on all of these articles without proper discussion. Especially considering 16 of them are already featured lists and utilize this format. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dajasj: Do you have any more feedback? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, that's it :) Dajasj (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Great, thank you for your review and feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

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

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

@Gonzo fan2007: Thank you taking a look over this nomination! I agree, I've removed the clear template and made the changes you've suggested. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay across the board, and the link-checker tool reveals no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 13:27, 10 July 2024 (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, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [31].

---

List of Intercontinental Cup (football) matches

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

• "The Intercontinental Cup was disbanded" - I think "discontinued" would be a more appropriate word
• "In its first eight editions, the competition's winner was decided on a points system" - the table shows nine
• "determine the outcome in case of a tie" => "determine the outcome in the event of a draw"
• "The most successful confederation is CONMEBOL, teams representing the confederation have won the competition 22 times" => "The most successful confederation is CONMEBOL, teams representing the confederation having won the competition 22 times"
• Why are there flags by the two Japanese stadiums but not any other stadium?
• Note o is missing its full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, @ChrisTheDude: I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• In tables where you have rowspans for header cells, there the scope should be "rowgroup".
• I don't understand the sorting within the Score column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, @MPGuy2824: I should have fixed both of those now. NapHit (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

    Slightly weird to use "two-legged" and "single-leg". Please change it to either "single and double" or "one and two", whichever the sources support more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

    It's common to refer to ties of this nature in football as being played over two-legs, so it would be odd to write double finals or even two match finals. I agree it does sound a bit weird, but changing to something else wouldn't reflect how sources refer to these type of matches. NapHit (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

    I don't object to the word leg/legged being used. So my suggestion is to either use "single/double-leg" OR "one/two-leg", but not a mix of the two. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

    Ok, think I've fixed this now @MPGuy2824:. Should all refer to two-legs. NapHit (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

    Not sure how I missed this ping. The table of contents itself has the following: "Matches over two-legs" and "Single leg matches". If you can change the section title and the caption of the table in that section it would be great. I'm supporting this promotion since these are smallish changes which I'm sure you'll get to. P.S. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for getting back to me @MPGuy2824:, I've made those changes and will take a look at our nom in due course. NapHit (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

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

Only two comments:

• The infobox image is under the |logo= parameter; it would benefit from being changed to the |image= parameter and from having a caption.
• Statements about the playoffs vary slightly:

1. Peñarol won 2–1 in playoff at Estadio Centenario

2. Santos 1–0 in playoff at Estádio do Maracanã

3. Internazionale won playoff 1–0 at Santiago Bernabéu; Racing Club won playoff 1–0 at Estadio Centenario

I would make them all like 1 but add 'the' before playoff. So "Team won x-y in the playoff at Stadium".

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

• • Thanks for your comments, @Sgubaldo: they should all be addressed now. NapHit (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

    Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

48JCL

NapHit, alt text is needed for the only image. On prose, I got nothing. 48JCL 14:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, @48JCL:, I've added alt text to the image. NapHit (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Support 48JCL 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted. The link-checker tool doesn't recognize the fact that the UEFA links have archived versions for some reason, but doesn't show any issues otherwise. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 13:27, 10 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [32].

---

List of historic places in Gore District

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Driveby cmt and image review by Queen of Hearts

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

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

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

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

Queen of Hearts ^talk 18:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Initial comment: The other articles in Category:Lists of historic places in New Zealand include a column for images. I'd recommend the same here. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

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

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

@Generalissima: Note that I tweaked by feedback for ref 1 and an additional piece of feedback that was based on the bibliography that you converted to a reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Okay, I think i fixed everything! IABot hasn't ran yet, but I told it to. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image could be made larger
• "Former passanger station of the Main South Line" - second word is spelt wrong
• That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Okay! Fixed :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

Disclosure: while I had already been aware of this nomination, I found out through a short interaction on Discord that this still needed another review. Images and sources have already been covered, so I'm gonna do a prose review. Some comments:

• First settled by the Māori, European occupation began in the early 1850s, – I'm unsure of the way this part of the sentence is grammatically structured. It seems to imply that European occupation was itself first settled by the Māori, which doesn't make sense.
  • Rephrased to make it a bit clearer. -G
• Additions, including a session house, were added by William Sharp in 1892. – Additions were added? I feel like this could be tweaked a bit.
  • Rephrased. - G
• the church saw large scale repairs – Feel free to demur if this is a valid stylistic choice, but my instinct is that this should be hyphenated as "large-scale".
  • Yeah, good idea. Fixed. - G
• Restoration work was taken on the church – I don't know if this is a valid grammatical application of the phrase "taken on". Maybe rephrasing to "the church was restored/renovated" would work?
  • Good idea, fixed. - G
• Does railway windmill need to be redlinked? The phrase "railway windmill" should obviously stay, but I think shortening the wikilink to windmill would suffice.
  • Good idea. - G
• Clematis Cottage description – This is a total nitpick, but linking the two sentences with a semicolon would flow better IMO.
  • Good idea. -G
• Bank of New Zealand (former) description – It may be worth mentioning/clarifying that the building was constructed around 20 years after the Mataura BNZ became the third BNZ outlet in Southland.
  • Good idea! - G
• There are a couple incomplete sentences in the bottom half of the 'notes' column that I feel could be tweaked for flow. Suggested revisions:
  • A new station was built the following year, designed by George Alexander Troup. Still in use as a freight station. → A new station, designed by George Alexander Troup, was built the following year and is still in use as a freight station.
  • Saw rapid expansion → The mill saw rapid expansion

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Dylan620: Thank you so much! I think I fixed all of these. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Generalissima: We're close to the point where I would support. The only thing that I still recommend changing would be to reduce the number of incomplete sentences in the Bank of New Zealand (former) description. I'm going to reproduce the text here, with my suggested changes bolded: The building was constructed twenty years after the Bank of New Zealand's initial expansion in Mataura as its third outlet in Southland, and operated until the decline of business in the town in the 1970s. I almost made these changes myself, but got cold feet because I didn't want to feel like I was overstepping as a reviewer. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Dylan620: There we go! Thank you. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Generalissima: We're good to go! Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2024 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [33].

---

World Figure Skating Championships cumulative medal count

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Drive-by comment

• At just two sentences, the lead is much shorter than is expected for a FL. It could do with bulking out with a very brief overview of the history of the event and some key points about the people and nations with most medals. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have expanded the lead per your suggestion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• I too have a drive-by comment. You're missing row and columns scopes in a number of tables, which are crucial for accessibility. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I was sure I had properly formatted all of the tables. I will of course double-check all of them this afternoon and make any appropriate corrections. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hey man im josh, are you referring to the medals by country tables? If so, that’s a template and I wouldn’t know how to change its parameters. The only thing I could do is render it as a table, which I, of course, can do if necessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  On review, yes, it looks like it's the medals by country tables. I'm actually seeing the same thing with all of medal tables under Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games. Is there an exception or are the medal tables formatted in a way that's already accessible @PresN? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming we're talking about the {{Medals table}} under e.g. Total medal count by nation, it's fine- the're no visual indication, but the colscopes and rowscopes (using the Nation column cells) are set by the template, I verified in the html. --PresN 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's good to know, I'll make a mental note of that. Thanks PresN! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

PresN, can you verify that the tables in this article meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS? I believe we have caught everything, but if there is anything that we've missed, please let me know. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they're fine. --PresN 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Dylan620

• Alt text is present for every image used in the listicle.
• All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
• Dead link source for File:Alan and David Jenkins 1956.jpg accepted in good faith. Same goes for File:Gabriella Papadakis and Guillaume Cizeron 2016.jpg, File:2010 World Figure Skating Championships Dance - Tessa VIRTUE - Scott MOIR - Gold Medal - 0615a.jpg, and File:Aliona Savchenko & Robin Szolkowy Podium 2008 Worlds.jpg – for these three images, permissions were verified/obtained by VRT.
• While the source URL for File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H1219-0016-001, Ludmilla Pachomowa, Alexander Gorschkow.jpg is live, the image is no longer viewable there; I am going to presume that the image was viewable there at the time it was uploaded to Commons in December 2008.
• All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.

Support based on image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

• "With the exception of the Olympic title, a world title is considered to be the highest competitive achievement in figure skating." — This is in the lead and is uncited, so I expected it to be somewhere cited in the article. I can't find it, can you help.
• "Irina Rodnina won" — The reader has been introduced to her first name is the immediately previous sentence, she could be referred just by her last name.
• Why is East Germany linked when all other countries or places are not? I'm not asking you to unlink it, just curious about your approach towards wiki-links here.
• "Figure Skating: A History" v. "Figure skating: a history". Lets capitalize each word.
• Do we need ISU link in the External links section when we have already cited it multiple times in the article.

Thats about it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

All of these have been addressed except for #3 and #5. I assume East Germany is linked because it no longer exists? I left the link in the External links section because that seems consistent with other international figure skating competition articles, but I have no objection if someone else wants to remove it. Thank you for your input! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed, regular review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:06, 6 July 2024 (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) 12:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [34].

---

List of Jewish Major League Baseball players

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

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

Comments

• I only have time to look at the lead at the moment, but this is what I got on that:
• No list should start with "the following is a list". Look at other FLCs and find a way to write a more engaging opening.
• "players who have at least one Jewish parent" => "players who have or had at least one Jewish parent"
• Don't have bullet points in the lead, convert this into prose
• "The criteria for this list has" - "criteria" is a plural word so it should be "have"
• Per MOS:NOBOLD, bold should not be used to identify entries meeting certain criteria. Use a symbol like {{doubledagger}} instead
• "an virtual museum" => "a virtual museum"
• "with two players, Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax being considered" => "with two players, Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax, being considered"
• More later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, thank you. Will be adding your suggestions ASAP. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Right, I've rewritten the lede with your suggestions. Please give feedback whenever you can. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "with Lip Pike being the first one ever" => "with Lip Pike being the first"
• "20th-century" doesn't need a hyphen
• "Jewish players who made it to the Major Leagues often changed their name" => "Jewish players who made it to the Major Leagues often changed their names"
• "at the rampant in the country and the league" => "at the time rampant in the country and the league"
• "and the alleged involvement Jewish crime boss" => "and the alleged involvement of Jewish crime boss"
• "Greenberg played in Detroit which was home to Father Coughlin" => "Greenberg played in Detroit, which was home to Father Coughlin"
• "an antisemitic Catholic priest who used his radio program to broadcast antisemitic commentary and Henry Ford who spread antisemitism through his newspaper" - don't think you need to say "antisemitic" three times in such quick succession. I think you can get away with losing the first one.
• "He faced antisemitism from opposing benches and fans" - yet another one there. Maybe change this one to "abuse"
• "The most famous of those would be Sandy Koufax" => "The most famous of those was Sandy Koufax"
• "While Greenberg and Koufax were the main subjects of the film, the movie also discusses" - these two verbs should be in the same tense
• In the table header, "Major League Team(s)" shouldn't have a capital T on the last word as it isn't a proper noun
• I don't think the teams column needs to be sortable, as it will only ever sort on the first team listed
• Almost all of the image captions in the gallery contain facts which aren't cited anywhere else in the article, so they will need citing here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, getting right on it. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  And good catch with the "antisemitic priest who spread antisemitism" - I didn't realize! Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, I got the facts from citations next to each players' names. Its why I didn't add any to the captions. I thought it unnecessary. The rest of the changes you suggested I have done though. ETA: and, of course, the articles of each player list the facts in further detail as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  For 100% watertight referencing, I would duplicate whichever ref contains the fact in the image caption -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, I've done so and also added a few more references. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, just a reminder that I added the references to the pictures too. Is there anything else that needs to be added or changed? Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |{{sort name|Cal|Abrams}} becomes !scope=row |{{sort name|Cal|Abrams}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN, I've edited the tables as you have said. No questions but please check if I did it correctly. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, looks good. --PresN 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

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

@MPGuy2824, done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Dylan620

• Sourcing for each image checks out, though I did head over to Commons to fix some source URLs (see my recent edits there)
• Alt text is present for all images
• Each image contributes encyclopedic value to the listicle
• All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons
• The ref for the Sid Gordon caption, unless I'm missing something, doesn't seem to verify that he was "considered one of the best all-round players of his time"
• The ref for the Ryan Braun caption does not appear to verify any of the information therein, though it does have material that could be useful for a caption

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620, I've edited the two captions to match the info in the source provided next to them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620, is there anything else or is everything fine with the images? Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I meant to respond earlier today but got distracted. Everything looks good to me now. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed, regular review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:06, 6 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [35].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Tunisia

Nominator(s): Tone 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

MPGuy2824

• "because of construction" to "because of the construction" - in the lead and the table
• " resulted in reduction of vegetation and drop in bird numbers" to " resulted in a reduction of vegetation and a drop in bird numbers" - in the lead and the table
• "between the 12th to the 16th centuries" to "between the 12th and 16th centuries"
• wikilink "Islamic world"
• " series of wars until the" to " series of wars, until the"
• wikilink necropolis
• The sentences about minor boundary changes don't seem important to the list.
• "listed endangered" to "listed as endangered".
• "By 2006, the situation has improved" to "By 2006, the situation had improved"
• "As opposed to several Phoenician cities, such as Carthage, Byblos, or Tyre," to "Unlike other Phoenician cities, such as Carthage, Byblos, or Tyre,"
• "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE and were discovered in 1952, provide an important insight into the Punic urban planning." to "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE were rediscovered in 1952, and provide an important insight into Punic urban planning."
• "under the Aghlabids as a part of" to "under the Aghlabids, as a part of"
• "The medina has been well preserved, with several monuments, including the Ribat, which is both a fortification and a religious building, the Great Mosque (pictured), the kasbah, the Bou Ftata Mosque, and fortifications." - too long and complicated. Please split.
• "important Libyan–Punic settlement which" to "important Libyan–Punic settlement, which"
• "lives here while" to "lives here, while".
• "have been reintroduced" to "were reintroduced".
• "mammals and reptiles and it" to "mammals and reptiles, and it".
• I'll continue later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Continuing...

• "As opposed to several sections of Roman Limes" to "Unlike several sections of Roman Limes".
• "Sfax was the gateway and the port of Ifriqiya to the Levant." to "Sfax was the port of the Ifriqiya region, and its gateway to the Levant".
• "Geological formation" to "The geological formation" in two entries.
• "extinction event supporting" to "extinction event, supporting".
• A couple of the refs are missing archive links.
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks! I am trying to list the boundary modifications, either major (which get extra explanation) or minor, because this is still relevant - it is a list of WHS after all. And it explains why some numbers have bis or ter attached - I've had questions on that before :) Tone 08:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "By 2006 the situation has improved" => "By 2006 the situation had improved"
• "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE were discovered in 1952" => "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE, were discovered in 1952"
• "The island of Djerba has a semi dry climate" => "The island of Djerba has a semi-dry climate"
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed! Two of these were already mentioned above and I just took care of them :) Tone 09:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  You still have "By 2006 the situation has improved" in the lead...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Right, fixed now :) Tone 14:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [36].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1966

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

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

Comments

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

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

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

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

@Hey man im josh: - all done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, support! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

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

Image review: Passed

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

Aoba47

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

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

@Aoba47: - both done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [37].

---

List of soricines

Nominator(s): PresN 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Pseud 14

• Nothing to quibble and I see the wikilinks on the ecosystems you had mentioned in your prior nomination applied. Happy to support for promotion. Although a very minor observation (which I may be unfamiliar with), in the "Scientific name and subspecies" column, is there a reason why some scientists are in parenthetical while some are not? Pseud 14 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Pseud 14: Yep, per binomial nomenclature, you do that when the original namer put the species in a different genus than it's currently included in - so e.g. the southern short-tailed shrew is currently Blarina carolinensis, but (Bachman, 1837) originally had it as Sorex carolinensis, and that's the official way to denote that, apparently. --PresN 00:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation and insight into it. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Most of the dates are in mdy format, except a few that are in ymd format. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• @MPGuy2824: Fixed! --PresN 13:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

AK

• "soricine, or a red-toothed shrew" Comma unnecessary.
• "158 extant species" Maybe use living instead of extant to cut down on jargon.
• "the other 11" to "the other 11 genera"
• "prehistoric Soricinae species" to "prehistoric soricines"
• Tables, refs, and images look fine. AryKun (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  @AryKun: Done, though I linked extant rather than changing to living- since we're talking about species, not individuals, "extant" is the right word for "not extinct", rather than living (vs. dead). --PresN 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review:
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [38].

---

List of Vegas Golden Knights draft picks

Nominator(s): The Kip ^(contribs) 22:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Drive-by comment

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

Done. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image should not use forced pixel size, instead use the "upright" parameter, potentially with a multiplier e.g. "upright=1.3"
• I feel like ice hockey should be specifically mentioned/linked somewhere. Maybe mimic the opening of List of Seattle Kraken draft picks, also currently at FLC
• "2017 second-round pick Nicolas Hague has played the most games for Vegas of any draft picks" => "2017 second-round pick Nicolas Hague has played the most games for Vegas of any draft pick"
• "Wins, losses, ties, overtime losses and goals against average apply to goaltenders" - there's no column for ties.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  All taken care of. I'd removed ties from the chart a while back as VGK was founded long after their demise, but forgot to remove from that descriptor. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

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

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

@Hey man im josh just a note that I’m away from my laptop for the next day or two, but I’ll let you know when I’ve got these taken care of. Thanks for the feedback! The Kip ^(contribs) 21:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: No worries, I typically don't edit on the weekend anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, I'll go through point by point:

• 1 is done
• For 2, I based it off the title from FL List of New York Islanders draft picks.
• Added a note regarding 3 that Hockey Ref includes ties, but they're not in the chart as Vegas was founded after their abolition.
• 4-7 are done
• For 8, I chose to refer to them as the Golden Knights (again going off the Islanders FL)
• Expansion draft picks aren't included with entry draft picks - this is more a precedence thing, and undoing this (either merging the two or renaming entry draft picks) would have to be a WP:IH-wide project (if not sports wikiprojects-wide - expansion drafts are universally treated as separate from "the" (entry) draft, as seen at Washington Wizards draft history or Jacksonville Jaguars draft history).
• 10 is done.

The Kip ^(contribs) 05:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: That's funny you link Jacksonville Jaguars draft history, it's on my to do list and I was heavily considering and leaning towards including the expansion draft picks. While not the same, I did include the extra drafts in Detroit Lions draft history's sublists. Granted there was no expansion draft, so it's a bit of a different situation. Never the less, I'll accept that the expansion draft won't be included, even if I do believe it to be relevant to the subject.

I'm just checking with PresN whether you need exclamation points or not when declaring a scope, but otherwise, I think that's everything I've brought up addressed. I would like to see the second paragraph expanded a bit though.

Any thoughts on a separate goaltenders section, similar to List of Detroit Red Wings draft picks? For what it's worth, I have no issue with the cells having a line through them, I think that makes sense. I also had no issues with the images being beside the table, I think that's a pretty standard thing to do. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I thought so but confirmed it with PresN. Row scopes need to be declared with an exclamation point (! scope="row") to be accessible. | scope="row" is not acceptable for accessibility reasons. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh as for the second paragraph - I copied it from other draft pages. I'm not entirely sure how it could be expanded, as I feel it summarizes the draft/lottery process fairly well. I'm personally not a fan of the separate goaltender section, as in my opinion it takes away from being a comprehensive list of picks. I also agree that the images should be next to the table, but I'm still somewhat concerned regarding the issues raised by Dajasj - that said, if that problem is overstated I'd be happy to move them back.

Additionally, I'm having some issues regarding attempting to convert the table to ! scope="row" - I'm attempting to duplicate the styling found on the Lions page of only the draft year being bolded, but for some reason, no matter what I do the years are both off-center and not bolded. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: I'm on mobile right now but I wanted to give you a quick response about the issue. If you remove plainrowheaders (very first line at the top of the table) it should look like what you're aiming for when you add the exclamation point for the row scopes. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Gotcha, all done now. Let me know if any other changes are needed, or if you think it's good to go! The Kip ^(contribs) 19:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "Wins, losses, overtime losses and goals against average apply to goaltenders and are used only for players at that position." - why? Why not show winning/losing games for every player?
• It is very confusing to see only a bunch of dashes for some players. I guess this means that they didn't play for the team at all. It would be good if this was explained somehow. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824:

  • Those statistics (and specifically W/L) are only recorded by the league for goaltenders, similar to how W/L are only recorded for pitchers in baseball.
  • The "Key" section indicates that dashes indicate "does not apply," effectively meaning they never played NHL games - however, that's something of a given, considering the note above the table stating that it shows each player's statistical totals in the NHL.

  The Kip ^(contribs) 05:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  You'll have to make the player's name as the header cell of every row. Right now the draft year is set as the header cell, but that's not really unique across all rows. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 I'm not really sure if I follow. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hope the following tables make it clearer. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Current version

Draft	Round	Player	Player stat
2017	1	Cody Glass	0
2017	2	Player Two	1

Suggested version

Draft	Round	Player	Player stat
2017	1	Cody Glass	0
	2	Player Two	1

• @MPGuy2824:: There's no reason they can't use the draft column as the header cells, it's fairly standard and it's what I did in my draft related lists. They're welcome to change it up, as I know a lot of people do in various lists, but it's a personal preference thing from my understanding. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: MOS:DTAB states: Because the row header and column header may be spoken before the data in each cell when navigating in table mode, it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively. One possible solution here is to have the draft year as a level-1 header with rowspans, and the name (or something else unique to the row) as a level-2 header. Possibly, the cells of the "Player" column can be styled to look like the other non-header cells. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 With all due respect, I'm not even sure if what you're asking to be done is possible for someone not overly well-versed in table coding. Especially considering many of the football lists promoted to FL in the recent past (such as the ones Josh has successfully improved), and while I'm biased as the nominator, this feels a tad excessive with respect to the FL criteria. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824, just following up - do you support otherwise? Again, I'm not sure that what you're asking for regarding the tables is possible, nor is it necessary for FL. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion 2 from MPGuy

Draft	Round	Player	Player stat
2017	1	Cody Glass	0
	2	Player Two	1

This can be followed up with whatever styling you want to add to the player name cells to make it look like a normal cell.

Necessary for FL: I quoted the relevant section from the MOS above. Next, to quote from WP:FLCR 5c, Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. I don't see how I can support promotion unless this issue is taken care of. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 Just an observer here, I think I edited the table according to your specifications. Take a look at the markup and tell me if I did, feel free to revert otherwise. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@ULPS: Not quite, but I've fixed it. The problem is that you can't just use '!' to set a header cell when the whole row is defined on one line. There's a way to do it and stay on one line, but the easier thing to do is to put the header cell on its own wikitext line. Then you see the second problem- the header cell formatting overrides the css shorthands like bgcolor, so you need to call them out explicitly with css styles. It's a bit of a pain. --PresN 19:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I'll keep it in mind for the future. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This can be followed up with whatever styling you want to add to the player name cells to make it look like a normal cell.

Again, this requires a level of knowledge of table formatting/programming that most users including myself simply do not have. As Josh has pointed out, plenty of recent sports articles have been promoted without that - I really do not understand why this one is being held to a unique standard. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Weighing in here! There's a difference between this list and most other recent sports lists, and that's that the 'year' cell here is the same for multiple rows. For e.g. Josh's lists, there's one row per year. The reason this matters is for what MPGuy2824 said- the point of the row header cell is to "uniquely identify" the row. If every row is a single year, then the year uniquely identifies it. In this list, though, the year doesn't- the first year identifies 12 rows. Now, we don't always have to be strict on this- if it's still clear in context what's going on, then that's fine. But for this list, prefixing the audio of the table cells with the year isn't very clear. Now, do I strictly adhere to that? No, because it can be a pain to solve for non-technical editors in areas that don't put the unique cell as the first one in the row (like here, where we organize by year). But according to the letter of the rules, we should do better.

There's a few ways to do better! What a lot of areas do with tables like this is just make the unique thing be the row header- which in this case would be the player name. Even though that's not the first column in the table, it's allowed. You can also make a combination header that is unique- in this case, draft+pick, or draft+player. Of those two, draft+player is better, because "2017 61" doesn't make sense if you don't know that 61 is the pick number. The problem here, and one reason I use a light touch on pushing accessibility sometimes, is that making the player the header while preserving the formatting is a major pain. You need less-common table code formatting, and you need to have a bunch of raw css style code for every line. It's doable, but wikimedia could make the process simpler.

In any case, between ULPS and myself, it should be fine now. --PresN 19:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@ULPS and @PresN, much appreciate your assistance. Hopefully this clears up any issues with the nom! The Kip ^(contribs) 05:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Dajasj

• The image don't fit next to the table on smaller screens or screens that use Vector 2022 max width by default. So on desktops this creates huge white space, while on mobile it creates a lot to scroll past. I would recommend leaving out additional images.
• In the first column, the rows can be combined if they are from the same year right? It's confusing me, because I expect different links.
• Could it be possible to leave out "—" in every cell and clarify that empty cells means this did not apply. I think it would make the entire table less cluttered (especially because four columns are nearly always empty).
• Maybe it is my lack of knowledge on this topic, but the table suggests there are multiple goaltenders, yet the four right columns are empty for them and the introduction mentions only one? (Please ignore this if this comment was simply ignorant ;)) Dajasj (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dajasj:

  • I've converted it to a gallery at the bottom - my concern with removal entirely is that the list then falls below the expectation for featured content to be adequately illustrated.
  • They could be in theory - Ice hockey and basketball wikiproject precedence indicates they're individually linked though (see the Wizards and Islanders lists linked above). I assume it has something to do with accessibility.
  • Again a precedence thing, though I disagree here - I feel that empty cells make the table look incomplete.
  • All good, haha - Patera's the only goaltender to actually play for Vegas, hence the rest of the drafted goalies' stats being empty. Zhukov and Kooy never signed with the team, while Saville, Vikman, Lindbom, and Whitehead are all still prospects who haven't yet reached the NHL.

  The Kip ^(contribs) 05:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  One option to deal with some of the long line of emdashes, is to replace them all with a colspan saying "Drafted but didn't play for the Knights" for every such player. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  With the sheer amount of players on the chart that'd apply to, I feel like that wouldn't be visually appealing. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dajasj, just to clarify - do you support? The Kip ^(contribs) 02:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes Dajasj (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

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

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

@EN-Jungwon I've done so. While 3 and 4's raw links are dead, they're successfully archived and accessible - I don't see why they can't be used as a result. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I was rewieing this version of the page where the url status parameter of ref 3 and 4 were set to live. When I commented that those references were dead I was implying that the url status needed to be changed. I should've made that clear. But it looks like Hey man im josh already fixed that in this edit. Since my comments have been addressed I'll go ahead and support promotion. -- EN-Jungwon 02:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for the support! The Kip ^(contribs) 03:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review from Dylan620

Because this listicle only has 12 sources, I decided to check them all.

• Unless I'm missing something, ref 3 does not verify that the entry draft occurs in June of every year.
• Per ref 2, a couple players' names are misspelled: Maksim Zhukov and Stanislav Demin
• No other concerns with source-to-text integrity; all other refs verified.
• Source titles should consistently be in either sentence case or title case; the listicle currently employs a mixture of the two.
• There were a couple instances of {{cite web}} where National Hockey League is listed as a website instead of a publisher, which results in the NHL being incorrectly italicized. Other than this point and the one above, source formatting looks good.
• All sources appear reliable.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620:

• Agreed, and I can't seem to find anything in text that specifies June - as such, I've changed it to "off-season," which I feel is general enough.
• Corrected the names. Slava's been a common name in some sources, but I can't find enough to be definitive.
• Fixed the sentence/title case for most refs - left title case in place for the "Draft History" or "Hockey Operations Guidelines"-type ones where it feels more natural, but changed to sentence for the others
• Fixed the website/publisher discrepancy.

The Kip ^(contribs) 04:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me now – support! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:11, 28 June 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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