Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2021

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers

Nominator(s): eviolite (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive with sources for each individual entry in addition to general sources, explains the relationship between these two types of numbers, and is illustrated with pictures. Also, this would be just the third current FL of WP:WPM. I combined portions of List of perfect numbers (now histmerged into this article) and Mersenne prime to create this list (in addition to my own work). Please note that this is my first nomination for any type of good/featured content, so it is likely I may have missed one or two things, but I believe it meets all the criteria and may only need minor copyedits. eviolite (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

Overall, this is a really strong first FL nomination (and a really interesting one!). Just a few comments:

• The lead seems to mix {{math}} and <math> – since the fonts are slightly different, try to pick one or the other.
  • According to WP:MATH: Therefore, the common practice of most members of WikiProject mathematics is the following: Use of {{mvar}} and {{math}} for isolated variables and very simple inline formulas; Use of LaTeX for displayed formulas and more complicated inline formulas. But I do understand that it looks a bit weird.. I've changed the singular use of <math> to the {{math}} template. This equation is more complex than the other ones, so it's still a bit awkward, but is it better?
• Lead uses lots of parentheses; try to remove some where possible
  • Done
• <sup> or {{sup}} should work in citation titles; try using that instead of "^"
  • Done
• Use "−" (minus sign) instead of "-" (hyphen) in equations
  • Done by PrimeHunter
• Rename "General references (for all entries)" section heading as "General references" and adjust footnote (a) accordingly
  • Done

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that I have addressed these issues. eviolite (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: new sig to ping eviolite (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support – Looks great! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table `|+ caption_text`, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`
• The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`, e.g. `! class="unsortable" | Rank` becomes `! class="unsortable" scope=col | Rank`, etc.
• The "primary" cell in each row needs to be marked with `scope=row` (e.g. `| align="right" | 1` becomes `!scope=row align="right" | 1`); this combined with the colscopes allows screen reader software to accurately read out the table as a data table. --PresN 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  @PresN: I believe I have addressed these issues. eviolite (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• Both the images used are licenced as "own work" under suitable licences, and have appropriate ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

• Version reviewed — 1

Formatting

• Change "Ref" column from ! class="unsortable" scope=col | Ref to ! class="unsortable" scope=col | {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (adding abbreviation).
  • Done
• All the citations under the "Ref" column need to be center aligned, using align=center. I have done one as an example. Repeat the same in all the reference cells.
  • Done
• Be consistent with linking the author or not. Either link all, or none. If you choose to link, please
  • Ref#8 – Link Wagstaff, Samuel S.
  • Ref#9 – Link Pomerance, Carl
  • Ref#26 – Link Riesel, Hans
  • Ref#28 – Link Gillies, Donald B.
  • Ref#29 – Link Tuckerman, Bryant
  • Ref#30 – Link Noll, Curt
    • All done, also did some other ones.
• Be consistent with including publication location with books/journals. Few have (like Ref#13 - "Washington", Ref#14 - New York), while others don't. I'll suggest to remove all.
  • Done, I think -- not sure about aliases of that parameter, so might have missed one
• Ref#6 – Needs a page number, or a page range.
  • That book has no page numbers on Google Books, added chapter= instead
• Ref#15 – "O'Connor, John J," – there seems to be an erroneous comma after 'J'
  • Done by Citation bot, added a period for consistency
• Ref#16 – 'Calendarium ecclesiasticum - BSB Clm 14908' – Needs an endash (–) instead of a normal dash (-)
  • Done
• Ref#31 – Add URL access level as "limited"
  • Done
• Ref#37 Change "Los Angeles Times" from "Publication" to "Name of publication"
  • Done by Citation bot
• If all the sources mentioned in the §General references section apply to all the entries, why not merge them, and add them as a common source on the top of column (As done here). Do let me know if you want any help here.
  • I've done this but please note that some of the sources miss out on a few entries due to age, I assume that's not really a problem though
    • We do have individual sources for all entries. Definitely not a problem. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• No issues. We do have few very old sources (1603), but majority of the sources are recent ones.
  • that's a primary source -- the general refs (and any other source in the ref column) serve as secondary sources

Verifiability

• Ref#32 – Can we have any identifier? Link? ProQuest ID?
• Ref#39, 41 – Same as above
  • For all three: Added links. For Proquest: marked url-access as subscription. I'm not quite sure but it seems the Gale ones are accessible even when not logged in?

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I believe these issues are resolved now (though see my notes on each one). Thanks, eviolite (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything looks good. Pass for source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kavyansh.Singh

• Apart from the above source review, I definitely support this list for promotion as a featured list. It is really interesting to see a math list at FLC. I am not an expert, but was quite familiar with the topic, and found this list easy enough to understand. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Some of the refs are centre-aligned but others are not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Kavyansh.Singh did that one as an example, I've since centered all of them
• Support - I got nothing else :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [2].

---

List of bovids

Nominator(s): PresN 15:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My life has been pretty busy the last few months, which greatly delayed the next list in my mammal series—not to mention the size of the list. But finally, following up on my 10-list series of Carnivora (carnivorans/felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds) comes a third list in Artiodactyla (cervids/suines): the 144 species of Bovidae, covering antelope, cows, gazelle, goats, and sheep. Basically just a ton of non-deer/pig/horse hooved animals in one giant family. This follows the pattern set by the previous 12 lists (and reviewer comments therein), so hopefully it's good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• File:Gazella erlangeri.jpg – The source link doesn't has the image. The correct source link appears to be this, which states that the image is copyrighted (All rights reserved). The source states "The resized photographs can be freely used on any pages for non commercial, scientific and educational purposes, if you let me know about it first" The image doesn't seem to be licenced under CC 4.0.
• Rest all around image are mostly "Own work" uploaded by Wikipedia user, from Flickr, or appropriately licenced. Images have ALT text. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed the erlangeri image, as it appears to not be free use. --PresN 18:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Other reviews

Comments

• "have a population sizes of over one million" => "have population sizes of over one million"
• Under springbok, shrubs is spelt incorrectly
• Under Arabian oryx, and is spelt incorrectly
• Under scimitar oryx, "as well fruits and vegetables" => "as well as fruits and vegetables"
• The note should probably have a full stop
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: All done! Thanks for reviewing. --PresN 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Bovids range in size from the 38 cm (15 in) long (plus 5 cm (2 in) tail) royal antelope to the 3.3 m (10.8 ft) long (plus 0.7 m (2.3 ft) tail) gaur, which can reach 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) in weight.": The third sentence of text on a page shouldn't be this hard to parse. Move some words around, please.

• Took out the tails, it's just too much even besides the double-parenthesis

• I don't remember what we decided in one of my lists about, for instance, "Dorcatragus megalotis.jpg ... |image-alt=" ... will the screen-readers read that correctly?

• Alts shouldn't be missing, now added to the blank ones

• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates in the first column are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Dank: Fixed, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I've had a look over this and the only thing I could raise is that endnote a doesn't seem to be cited; the information doesn't seem to be present in the IUCN source for B. bison, although perhaps I'm missing it elsewhere. Either way both the 500,000 farmed figure and the claim they're "almost universally" hybrids feel like claims which should be referenced, but that's all I have. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Thanks, cite added. --PresN 21:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. This source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [3].

---

List of accolades received by Koi... Mil Gaya

Nominator(s): Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Koi... Mil Gaya is one of the earliest science fiction films from India, with its star Hrithik Roshan receiving appreciation from the audience, critics, and award groups. The film is also popular in other countries, especially in my country Indonesia. I nominated this list because I believe it is comprehensive enough. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Photo caption needs a full stop

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• "the film revolves on Rohit" => "the film focusses on Rohit"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• "who comes in contact" => "who comes into contact"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• "with the computer of his late father" => "by using the computer of his late father"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• "In addition to write the film's story" => "In addition to writing the film's story"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Rakesh Roshan also done its screenplay" => "Rakesh Roshan also created its screenplay"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Produced on a budget between" => "Produced on a budget of between"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• In the table, "Idhar Chala Mein" should disregard the quote marks and sort under I.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It still sorts at the top.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• That's what I got on a first pass.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The table needs a caption, e.g. at the top of the table code add "|+ <table_caption_text>" or, if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can make it only for screen reader software like "|+ {{sronly|<table_caption_text>}}". Captions allow screen reader software to jump to tables by name. --PresN 14:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• No need for the year in the infobox caption

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sources 2 and 3 seem to be about the cast and crew, so how do they support the claim that it received "positive reviews"?

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Eight Rotten Tomatoes reviews is too few to be meaningful (see Wikipedia:Review aggregators#Limitations)

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• it also got → it also received

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• The date 20–22 May 2004 doesn't sort correctly (ranges of dates aren't automatically recognized as dates)

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hrithik Roshan, Rakesh Roshan, Rajesh Roshan, and Johnny Lever are not sorted correctly

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

First names also need to be considered – so "Hrithik" should sort before "Rajesh", which in turn should sort before "Rakesh"

• Source 23 is from Getty Images, which I highly doubt is relevant to this article

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would not stack references vertically as they are currently listed in the table. When the table is sorted in any way, it splits merged cells, so the references makes each cell unnecessarily tall and limit how much can be shown. Instead, I would place the sources for each award next to each other horizontally, or if that would make the cell too wide, place them into a single ref tag as a list.

@RunningTiger123: Like this? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Could a {{refn}} be employed instead of bundling refs together? — DaxServer (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No. The reviewer agrees with the current form, and I also agree with it too. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments above. Also, one more note: fixed image sizes are discouraged per MOS:IMGSIZE, so change the infobox image to use relative scaling. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• The only image File:Hrithik at Rado launch.jpg – is licenced under CC Attr 3.0, and reviewed in an OTRS ticket. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [4]

Formatting

• For the refs with more than one citation (7 and 8 for example), I recommend putting <hr/> in between them to differentiate them better

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• The Associated Press is the author, not the publisher

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• Fine overall

Verifiability

• Looks good.
• No real issues, so pass for source review. Though I still recommend considering my first point. Aza24 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• There was an edit to the image size in August, prompted by a (correct) point made by an FLC reviewer, that had the effect of squeezing the table and creating a lot of white space. I think I've fixed it, but let me know if you don't like how it looks now.
• I checked sorting on all sortable columns; it's not a problem for me that the various Roshans are out of order ... sorting on last name only is fine by me ... but I'm bringing it up because some reviewers care about these things.
• I added "lk=on" to create a link to Indian rupee, but I haven't been keeping up on copyediting issues like I used to ... revert if that's not right.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I 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 article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [5].

---

Karisma Kapoor filmography

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Karishma Kapoor is one of the most famous and widely known actress of Hindi Cinema. Recently, have added refs, re-wrote lead and tried to add all necessary things required to be a FL. All comments welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions ("|+ <caption_text>" above the column header lines, or "|+ {{sronly|<caption_text>}}" if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context. --PresN 15:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Added @PresN: Check now please--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 05:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

====Comments from HAL==== I would place the scope on the film title rather than the year.  Added--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Many of her roles are not correctly sorted by surname.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Just got interrupted... I'll get to the lead soon. ~ HAL333 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC) appearing in the commercially successful films --> "appearing in these commercially successful films"  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) playing smaller parts of the love-interests in male-dominated films --> "playing smaller love-interest roles in male-dominated films" Comma needed after "The film earned her praise from critics"  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) several of the years --> "several of the year's" I have re-written entire sentence The above sentence also does not make sense. Hero No.1 is from 1997. she portrayed the real life actress Zubeida Begum --> "she portrayed actress Zubeida Begum"  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Change "Though" to "However" --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) "thriller Bodyguard, which ranks among the highest-grossing Bollywood films of all time." needs a source.  Done Meanwhile changed the sentence. Let me know if it's framed correctly.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Does Note a have a source?  Added--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) That's all for now. ~ HAL333 16:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Hi @HAL333:, please have a look at the list and let me know if there are issues to resolve.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Hello @HAL333:, Can you please close the suggestions that I fixed already?. It will help me to identify the unsolved one very easily.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 19:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Terribly sorry for the delay. ~ HAL333 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Kapoor had her first commercial success in a leading role in romantic action drama Anari (1993). Anari was a commercial success and was one of the highest grossing films of 1993" => "Kapoor had her first commercial success in a leading role in romantic action drama Anari (1993), which was a commercial success and was one of the highest grossing films of 1993"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Also, what's the source for that last bit?
  •  Added--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "From 1992–1996; she featured in" - no reason for that semi-colon to be there
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "The success of the these films" => "The success of these films"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "in the Yash Raj's produced musical romance" => "in the Yash Raj-produced musical romance"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Subsequently, she played leading roles in several blockbuster films, including the comedies Hero No.1 (1997)" - you already mentioned that film. The chronological order has gone a bit weird here.........
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "acclaimed performance of a disillusioned sister of Hrithik Roshan's character in the terror drama Fiza (2000), won" - no reason for the comma before "won"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "took sabbatical from films" => "took a sabbatical from films"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "during the time" => "during this time"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Within the first day of its release, it went on to become" => "Within the first day of its release, it became"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "the film and her performance received mixed reviews" - that bit should be a separate sentence
  • Check now--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "she again took sabbatical from films" => "she again took a sabbatical from films"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Source review from Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

;Source review Version reviewed – this – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Formatting Ref#3 – Add March 1, 2020 as date  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Be consistent with linking Website/News/Institute/etc. in citations. Few, like British Board of Film Classification (Ref#33), Firstpost (Ref#43) are linked, rest are not.  Fixed I prefere linking--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Still some Websites like "The Times of India", "The Indian Express" and "The Free Press Journal" are un-linked. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)  Fixed My apologies. @Kavyansh.Singh: Please have a look now.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Be consistent with 'Rediff' or 'Rediff.com'  Fixed 'Rediff.com'--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Also change "Times of India" to "The Times of India", and remove "The Times Group" as the agency. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Ref#83 is just a link. Format it as a citation  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Please check Ref#89. It reads 'DelhiJuly 4, India Today Web Desk New; July 4, 2019UPDATED; Ist, 2019 11:33'  Fixed Replaced with new one. No idea who had added it.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Reliability Seems fine to me. No major issues. Verifiability Few links are dead, like British Film Institute (Ref#20), NDTV (Ref#50), etc. I'll suggest to archive all the citations. You can use this tool (Check the box saying 'Add archives to all non-dead references')  Fixed Archivied--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Afterwards, try running the Citation bot – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Hi @Kavyansh.Singh: please check now.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) @25 Cents FC – just a few more things needs to be addressed. Rest, most seems fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• @25 Cents FC – I fixed a few more things, and everything seems fine now. Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate, appreciate.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 15:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• The only image File:KarismaKapoor05.jpg – is licensed under CC attr 3.0, and is confirmed in an OTRS ticket. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh Can you please close the suggestions that I fixed already?. It will help me to identify the unsolved one very easily.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 19:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*"work in Hindi films" why obfuscate Bollywood? More readers will be familiar with Bollywood than "Hindi films". Bollywood films have English-language films as well like Delhi Belly, Finding Fanny etc. She has not acted any such films hence Hindi films.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "success in a ... a moderate success" success ... success.... Not getting.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "of 1993.[3] From 1992–1996" repetitive year usage. From 1992–1996 -> surely "between"?  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "Despite appearing in these commercially..." this sentence appears to be unreferenced and honestly doesn't really make sense to me.  Fixed I was not in favour of this sentence either. Since it was added by someone, I did not care to remove.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "Kapoor's career prospects improved" according to whom? I have used this based on Box office collection and awards and nomination received by Kapoor, for mentioned films.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "of ₹763.4 million" link rupee. And translate to something that the majority of our readers can understand, e.g. US$ or £ or Euro.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "drama Raja Hindustani. With worldwide earnings of ₹763.4 million, Raja Hindustani emerged" no need to repeat the name of the movie.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Our article at Dil To Pagal Hai has no h in Toh.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "Later in 2002, she" last year mentioned was 2001?  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "sabbatical from films" from the film industry.  Fixed "records upon its release. Within the first day of its release" repetitive.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "opening day grosser as well as the biggest grosser ever for a single day" likewise.  DoneMy fault, I wrote the whole sentence.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "She made her comeback to films" her acting comeback  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) " Dangerous Ishq" appears to be Ishhq.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "(2012)–in which" no need for en-dash, just space is fine.  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "belonging to four different centuries" do you mean living in four different centuries?  Fixed My apologies, Kapoor's character in the film is related to past lives not centuries.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "proved to be a commercial failure earning Kapoor appreciation" perhaps "... failure yet earned Kapoor..."  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "she again took a sabbatical from films" from the film industry. Or maybe "from acting"? Actually films, because in 2020 she appeared in a web series.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Although, the list mentions a 2018 appearance...  Done Special appearances as herself, Kapoor didn't act in those movies --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Tables are sortable so everything that's linked should be linked every time.  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) The web series isn't mentioned in the lead.  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) That's my first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to resolv concerned raised by editors. Please let me know if everyone's issues addresed. Delay in promotion not letting me nominate other list. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 17:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1958

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, here it is folks, it's taken four years and I now present the final list of yearly number-one country songs (until this year ends and I have to try and promote 2021). This will complete a set of 77 articles covering the number-one country songs of every year from 1944 to 2020. The final one covers the year in which Billboard first published the chart currently known as Hot Country Songs. As ever, any and all feedback will be addressed as quickly as humanly possible. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• Final List! All images seem fine, published between 1926 and 1977 without a copyright notice. Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

• Okay, just a few points. Version reviewed — 1
• Link James C. McKinley Jr.
• Billboard is not linked from Ref#43 to Ref#53
• Rest reliability and verifiability is fine. Great!

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: - done. I wasn't aware up to now that McKinley was notable enough to have an article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk)

Support from TRM

As good as we've come to expect, so just a few things...

• "first issue of 1958 " in the past, did we look at what the incumbent number one was heading into the year, i.e. in the remnant days of the previous issue (i.e. up to 5 January in this case), as strictly they were number one in 1958 too...
• "although he would remain popular in the 1960s he would not" passive, perhaps "although he remained popular ... he did not..."
• "by Marty Robbins. The separate" overlinked.
• Great Balls of Fire (not Of).
• "Ballad of a Teenage..." (not Of A)
• Not a single number one from a female artist....?
• Ref 2 I can't access without a sub.

That's it. Good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - all done apart from "Not a single number one from a female artist....?" That's clearly the case (as was probably the case in many other years in the horrendously male-dominated country field) and I could add a sentence saying "All of 1958's country number ones were by male vocalists", but I don't have a specific ref for that factoid, and someone would probably claim it was OR without one, even though you can clearly see that all of the artists listed are/were men. What do you reckon.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries, it was more a personal observation which I've clearly missed before! All good for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - I just did a quick check and there hadn't been a number one featuring a female lead vocalist since 1954 (and even that one was a duet with a male singer) and there wouldn't be another one till 1961!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables are missing captions. --PresN 01:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @PresN: - now added (thanks, Dank!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Other reviews

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I added the table captions PresN is requesting.
• I found and fixed one double redirect in the table, but I didn't check all the links.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine now. I checked sorting on all sortable columns.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any (actual) problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

Wow. It's been a while since I've been here but I'm shocked you've kept this up over the years. The best thing I can say is congrats. I'll definitely make sure to support the FT when you nominate that. I'm more than happy to support the final list. Great job to you. – zmbro _(talk) 15:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [7].

---

Municipalities of San Luis Potosí

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC) and Coyatoc (talk)

Here is one more! I'm happy to keep working on the project of bringing all list of municipalities in Mexico to a high standard (10, nearly 11, states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The sub-column headers (km2, sq mi) need colscopes like the other column headers (e.g. scope=col). Colscopes, along with the rowscopes that are already there, allow screen reader software to accurately read out what column/row a bit of cell text is in, so you need them on all parts of a multi-part column header.  Done
• Tables need captions (|+ <caption_text>, or |+ {{sronly|<caption_text>}} if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context.  Done --PresN 20:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• In the last FLC I commented that it's weird to single out slaughterhouse regulation. Reading the constitution in source 4 ([8] 115.II), it says municipalities are responsible for Drinking water, drainage, sewerage, treatment and disposal of its wastewater; Public lighting; Cleaning, collection, transfer, treatment and final disposal of waste; Markets and supply centers; cemeteries; trails (can't tell best translation of rastro); Streets, parks and gardens and their equipment; Public security; and others. So even if the no-longer-accessible source 6 mentioned it among types of "Markets and supply centers" regulated, perhaps, I don't really think that should be called out in any of these articles, unless maybe another source gives the significance of this.  Done

• No you are right, I've just eliminated it here and in the previous nomination, sorry I missed this! Mattximus (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Also removed from all other Mexican state articles. Mattximus (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Otherwise this seems nicely standardized. Reywas92^Talk 16:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Soledad, second largest municipality by population in San Luis Potosí." - not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop  Done

• Nice catch! Should have seen this myself.

• "Axtla was renamed as Villa Alfredo M. Terrazas from 1932 to 1981" - so was it named Axtla before 1932, renamed for 49 years, then renamed back? Same with note K  Done

  Agree, I think "renamed" is just inappropriate, so removed. Should be clear now.

  "Axtla was as Villa Alfredo M. Terrazas from 1932 to 1981." - think there's a word missing there.....  Done-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pending

Comments below. Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [9]

Formatting

• Recommend linking INEGI  Done
• Be consistent with whether you include the location for INEGI (e.g. Mexico: INEGI vs INEGI alone)  Done
• Ref 6 needs a publisher; if the publisher is International Business Publications, I would just repeat it like in ref 5, otherwise it just appears to be missing  Done
• Run the dash tool [10]  Done

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• Seems fine Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*"the nineteenth most populated state" and "15th largest by land area spanning" both link to the same article.  Done And be consistent, either 19th/15th or nineteenth/fifteenth... Done "4,013 residents" %?  Not done This is the only one not done, as the number would not be informative to report (~0.0%), as it's not remarkable, as the other one is. "61,138.0 square kilometres (23,605.5 sq mi)." I don't see that figure in the source. "4,322.60 km2" probably a bit too accurate, the nearest tenth of a sq km would suffice.  Done "Charcas" is piped to a redirect.  Done Table needs checking for consistent conversions, e.g. I see "4.9/km2 (12.6/sq mi)" and "4.9/km2 (12.8/sq mi)".  Done (nice catch, it was a transcription error) Zaragoza is piped to a redirect.  Done So is Tierra Nueva.  Done Refs 1, 2 and 7 need en-dash, not hyphen.  Done That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone! I think I have addressed every comment. Mattximus (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Grapple X

• According to the 2020 Mexican Census, it is the nineteenth most populated state with 2,822,255 inhabitants and the 15th largest by land area—Two points here; one is that we're mixing words (nineteenth) with numbers (15th). Either is fine but pick one and use it consistently, either nineteenth and fifteenth or 19th and 15th. Second, it would be useful to have context for these rankings, as it stands it takes clicking through several links to see that this is out of a list of 31 states. Could we either mention that here ("the nineteenth most populated of Mexico's 31 states, with 2,822,255 inhabitants") or earlier (San Luis Potosí is one of the 31 states of Mexico, located in North Central Mexico and divided into 58 municipalities")?  Done
• The largest municipality by population is San Luis Potosí I would lose the pipe here and retain "City" in the name, as it avoids ambiguity given that the state is linked using the same text.  Done
• The construction "largest by population" sees a lot of repetition, could we rephrase some of these for variety? "Most populous" would be an option.  Done
• The section discussing the powers and governance of municipalities doesn't make it clear (to me at least) if this is how municipalities across the country function of it there's some differences state to state. Does this second paragraph in the lead apply to all states?

I believe this is true for every state in Mexico at a minimum. There are bound to be local exceptions however.

• That's all I've got for now, good work. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, these recommendations are excellent, I've made all of them and responded to your question. Mattximus (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. I'm happy to support this one at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [11].

---

List of world number one snooker players

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it covers the pinnacle of the snooker world rankings. Eleven people have held the number one position in the world since 1976. I welcome any comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh

• The lead seems bit short. It wouldn't be too long if you merge a summarized version of the "History" section in the lead.
  • Hmm, I'm not sure I want to merge the two sections. Two paragraphs seems suitable for a lede of a list with prose in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll be interested to know what others think... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• The references in the "Number one players" table need to be centered.
  • Aligned Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Add a caption to every table, possible using the {{sronly}} template.
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Check the title for Ref#4. It should probably just be "2005–6 Main Tour Two Year Rankings". Also, it lacks URL access date.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Few work organisations like The Independent, The Belfast Telegraph, The Canberra Times, etc. are linked, while rest are not. Be consistent with linking or not.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Add "Shamoon Hafez" in Ref#22 as the name
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Is there any ISBN number or publishing information for Ref#9 available?
  • Fraid not. It is released more as a magazine, but is a SPS. However, Chris Downer is a snooker historian, so could be considered reliable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are a few minor concerns from me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

All done Kavyansh.Singh. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski – Thanks for addressing most of my concerns. I support this nomination for promotion as a Featured list. Would appreciate your comments on this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96

• The two images could do with being upright per MOS:UPRIGHT
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Eleven players have held the number-one rank;" - avoid starting a sentence with a number per MOS:NUMNOTES
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• "only seven players held the number-one position." - don't think number one is hyphenated
  • Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• "whilst Selby has done so since it changed to a rolling format." - from which years has Selby held the record since the inception of the rolling format
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• "For the 2010–11 snooker season, the world rankings were changed to be updated after each tournament carrying ranking points." - will need to be verified by a reliable source mentioning all this information
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Many seasons are not wikilinked in the history section
  • TBC.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Alex Higgins would have been ranked number one in 1982–83," - in the 1982–83 snooker season,
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• In the prose just below the List of players section, the seasons don't necessarily need to be linked based on the third point I have made during the review
  • Strictly speaking, it's in a table, so doesn't apply. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• "but had ranking points deducted as a result of disciplinary action." - what caused disclinpary action to be taken against Alex Higgins?
  • Erm, he punched a guy. Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• "for each period since rankings began in 1976/77." - in the 1976/77 season.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• The term seeds can be wikilinked to Seed (sports) on its only mention in the prose
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• The reference in the first row of the "Number one players" doesn't mention at all the dates Ray Reardon was snooker's world number one
  • added confirmation ref. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Avoid having floating references by either adding explaining text above the two tables, adding table headers and put the references at the end of them or put the references in the appropriate sections of tables
  • I've placed them next to the headers from previous review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• You don't need to have |John Higgins in the sort name templates for John Higgins in the "Annual format (1975–2010)", "Rolling format (2010–present)", "Per season" and "Per frequency"
  • Removed - was a holdover from an old dab. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• The tables in the sub-headings "Annual format (1975–2010)", "Rolling format (2010–present)", "Per season" and "Per frequency" need to include scope="col"s for each of their columns to comply with MOS:DTAB
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• The "Annual format (1975–2010)", "Rolling format (2010–present)" tables need to be fully referenced for verification purposes
  • Cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• The title of Reference 1 "Rankings FAQ | WPBSA | Snooker" - does not need the text highlighted in bold
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent with the WPBSA sources; for example References 1 and 3 have the work as "WPBSA" while the rest has "World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" as the publisher
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Same with References 11 and 13 which have the publisher as "Global Snooker" while References 11 and 13 has the publisher "Global Snooker Centre"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Reference 4 title: "2005-6 Main Tour Two Year Rankings Updated 01/05/06 after 888.com World Championship" - the hypen should be replaced by an en dash (–) per MOS:DASH
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• References 14, 16, 20 and 22 are missing their respective publication dates
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That is all what I found during my read through of this list MWright96 (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on this one MWright96 - all done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

• History: This list shouldn't incoporate too much that should be in the main rankings article, but consider mentioning that for a while it was only the World Championship that carried ranking points. (Until the 1982 International Open, I believe).
• History: consider mentioning that (from 2014/15?) points were based on prize money. IMO that's quite a significant change.
• Periods: Feels to me like "Even though the rankings officially started in 1976, an Order of Merit was published in 1975 to determine the seedings for events. It used the same criteria that was used to determine the first set of official rankings the following year" should be incorporated into the History section rather than being introduced here.
• Periods: "criteria that was" - "criteria that were" (because criteria is a plural); or the following.
• Periods: "It used the same criteria that was used to determine the first set of official rankings the following year" feels a bit backwards, how about something like "The first set of official rankings the following year used the same criteria."?
• Ref ordering for Reardon ([11][4])
• Images: Consider and "as of" or different caption for the Selby pic, to avoid it becoming outdated when he loses the number one spot.
• External links: Isn't "Pro Snooker Blog" a website non grata (even tho' the author went on to work for the WPBSA)?
• "Rolling format (2010–present)" - reference is archived from August but says a calculation is "as of 11 September 2021"
• Consider adding https://wst.tv/rankings/ as an external link.
  • Hi BennyOnTheLoose, sorry it took me so long to get to this, I have completed this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Grapple X

Resolved comments from 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

*I could be wrong on this (PresN might know better?) but I'm sure that the cell colour alone to denote the once-a-year updates is enough for a screenreader; consider adding something like a dagger or asterisk to allow it to be seen by more than just colour alone. I'd also move the key to before rather than after the table but that's not particularly important. WP:COLOR - you can't use just color to denote information, because vision-impaired/colorblind readers can't see it. Add a † or * to those cells as well/instead. Also, keys usually go above the table, not below. --PresN 13:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC) I've actually culled it, as I have no idea what this is about. We update the table when someone changes being world number one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) I don't mean the updates to the article; there was previously a colour-shading to indicate the number-one ranking for years when that ranking was only updated once per year and not on a rolling basis; if you want to keep that demarcation present then just denote it with an additional asterisk or dagger too. Losing it leaves the table accessible too so either/or, really. I've edited and self-reverted a version which would keep the distinction and still be accessible, if you want to retain that then just restore it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Yeah, I think the prose covers that it was updated once a year. I don't think we benefit from going over that. If there is a need, we can add a dagger or something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC) The second external link is just a bare url, maybe format it a little like the one before it? Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) The sport of professional snooker first adopted a ranking system for the 1975–76 snooker season. I'd drop the second "snooker" here, it avoid repetition and it would be clear what the 1975-76 season refers to. The "snooker" in the other season ranges might similarly be trimmed. Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) This was altered from the 2014-15 snooker season. Hyphen here should be a dash Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Selby has also finished the season seven times ranked in first place. This reads awkwardly, "the season" seems like one singular when it isn't. Suggest Selby has also seven seasons ranked in first place Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) I'm sure how to feel about the mixed usage of slashes and dashes for season ranges. I can see the reason behind it in usages like 1976/1977–1982/1983 as dashes alone would be a mess, but even in standalone usage we have both dashes and slashes used in different places. Standardising everything to a slash would be one fix but I'm happy to hear this out and see what you think. The issues we have is that the articles for the seasons are at 1976–77 snooker season, whilst our articles on the rankings are at Snooker world rankings 1976/1977. I prefer this to be X–Y, which I believe to be correct, but as you say it's awkward at 1990/1991–1997/1998. Happy to change this, but probably something that has had issues with earlier comments on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) In that case I would suggest using a dash in all instances where a single season is mentioned, and a slash only when we're mentioning a span of several. As is we have for example ince rankings began in the 1976/77 season and and again in 2006/2007 which I would change to dashes. It would still leave a mix but at least each usage is consistent in its circumstance. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Works for me, I'll go through them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC) I don't know if this is actionable and looking at the citation templates being used I can't see why it's happening but there's an unusual mix of how archive URLs are displaying in the reflist, where templates which are coded the same way will alternately display the original link first and the archive link first (as "[archive link], archived from [the original]" or "[link], [achived] from the original"). If there was a reason for the split then I would suggest standardising it but I can't see where this is coming from and if it's not solvable then it's not a concern worth worrying about. This is due to the

• All resolved; happy to support. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: is there anything more I need to do on this nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [12].

---

Bong Joon-ho filmography

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL-criteria. The article has been edited to contain the same qualities as other Fls, including the recently promoted M. Night Shyamalan filmography, which I co-nominated. Pinging @BRVAFL as a major contributor. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*What are "narrative films"?  Done Added link. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Is there a link for "short film"?  Done Added link. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Why are three short films "in quotes" and the others in italics?  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Four para lead is too long. Probably two is all that's needed.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) "massive acclaim from critics" no need for "massive".  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) "The film, which received..." too many run-ons in this sentence.  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Ref columns don't need to be sortable.  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Tables ideally should have captions, even if they're screen-reader only.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Television table has one item so it needn't be sortable.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Where are the other rotten tomatoes ratings, e.g. Sea Fog?  Done Added. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Where are the "Frequent collaborators" referenced?  Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Check ref titles for spaced hyphens, should be spaced en-dashes.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC) That's my first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Your comments have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• The only image (File:Okja Japan Premiere- Bong Joon-ho (37867629864).jpg) is from Flickr, and is properly licenced. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Motel Cactus, where he also served as an assistant director" => "Motel Cactus, for which he also served as an assistant director"

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• "encouraged to write a play, which resulted in the creation and release of Parasite in 2019" => "encouraged to write a play, which resulted in the creation and release of the film Parasite in 2019" (to make it 100% clear that Parasite is not in fact a play)

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely no idea if the Korean title column sorts correctly, so I will AGF that it does.....
• Music video table should probably have the Korean title in its column to match the films table

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Performance credits table could be sortable

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Your comments have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The headers of tables need to have colscopes, e.g. `! rowspan=2 | Year` should be `! scope=col rowspan=2 | Year`. This along with rowscopes helps screen reader software accurately read out the cells of the table. You have it on a couple of them, but it needs to be on all, including the English/Original headers. --PresN 14:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@PresN  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Version reviewed — 1

Formatting

• Ref#16 – the name "A.O. Scott" needs to be formatted as last name and first name.
• Ref#29 – "New Brunswick, New Jersey" is the only location added for any reference, so you might wan to remove it for consistency. And format the ISBN number "9781978818903" using this tool.
• Ref#33 and Ref#34 – add archive links and archive date just for consistency, since all other citations have.

Reliability

• Seems fine.

Verifiability

• Did a few spot-checks (Ref#13, 17, 26). Everything looks good. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh All  Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina – Thanks! Everything looks good. Pass for source review. Would appreciate your comments at this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I support this nomination for promotion but have one comment: who began his career in the late 1990s, creating the 1994 [...] — is 1994 considered late in the 90s, especially considering it's part of the first half...? Pamzeis (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• October comments – @Giants2008, PresN, and The Rambling Man: Can this nomination be passed now? There are five supporting votes for this list to be an FL. I have the same question about the Nicolas Cage filmography nomination, which has four 'support' votes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• The nomination will be passed when a coordinator is able to take a look at it an evaluate it; for the record, it does not have 5 supporting votes, it has 2- ChrisTheDude and Pamzeis. The others were an image review, a source review, and comments without a concluding comment. --PresN 17:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall a great list. I have one minor comment: shouldn't the rowheaders be plain? Ippantekina (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ippantekina:  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Though the issue remains with the "Critical reception" section, that is not enough to keep me from supporting this list for FL. Please do resolve the issue later on. Ippantekina (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [13].

---

1951 in spaceflight

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the timeline articles are of the utmost important to WP:SPFLT -- and the universe at large! :) Neopeius (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead The lead does not read like a stand-alone introduction to (or summary of) the article. It reads more like a paragraph within a longer chapter eg "The year 1951 saw the Soviet Union definitively advancing beyond the V-2" - no context as to what the V-2 was. This reads like the V-2 has already been introduced/explained, but of course it hasn't because this is the first sentence. Each article (and its lead) should essentially stand alone and not require the reader to have read other articles to understand the context. "While the United States did not field any new boosters during the year" - again, no context supplied. Had they fielded new boosters the previous year? Every year since 1940-something? With no context supplied, this sentence is essentially meaningless. For that matter, what even is a booster? "both the U.S.A.F. and the U.S. Army" - need linking or expanding (especially USAF - what do these initials even mean?) "Meanwhile, the Navy fired" - which Navy? Pretty much every country in the world has a Navy..... Image caption is not a complete sentence, so shouldn't have a full stop Will look at the rest later......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions, @ChrisTheDude: -- I shall amend to make things more clear and stand-alone! --Neopeius (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Alright. I've reorganized and improved the lead as well as given the rest a much-needed proofread. It should be smoother sailing now. Thank you for your attention! --Neopeius (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Looks great! I'll give it a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Spaceflight before 1951 FLC

I haven't reviewed this list fully, but from my review of Spaceflight before 1951 for its FLC, there are several major issues that carry over to this list: namely, the table formatting and the use of Encyclopedia Astronautica. I've put a more thorough explanation there (link). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Answered at Spaceflight before 1951 :) Someone's going to have to tell me what to do with the table since it's a problem endemic to ALL of the timeline articles. And Wade should be just good enough. --Neopeius (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Now that Before 1951 is in shape, I went through 1951 and made the same improvements (citation name order, flag fix, table fix, pie chart fix). Let me know if there's anything left to do. :)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Now that the before 1951 list is sorted out, please copy over the structural changes from there- e.g. one table per section, instead of sections inside of the one table.
• Note the change I made at that list to add |caption={{sronly|<caption_text>}} into the table header template call- captions are needed in tables to allow screen reader software to jump to named tables; the {{sronly}} template makes it so that the text doesn't show up for visual browsers if it duplicates a nearby header.
• Note also the change I made at that list to the "by country" and "by rocket" tables at the bottom- there I added captions, colscopes, and rowscopes (which combined let screen reader software parse tables correctly/more easily), and that should be copied here. --PresN 21:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Can you do January so I have an example? I can then do all the other months, not just on this page but others in the series. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Done. --PresN 22:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: I think I made the table fixes correctly, to the launch lists and the summary at the bottom. :) --Neopeius (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

One issue, which I fixed. --PresN 15:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Per MOS:FLAG, "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details". None of the flags are ever accompanied by a country name, and (on my screen at least) what I eventually figured was the Soviet flag just looks like a red rectangle, not recognisable as a flag

I'd appreciate some guidance on this. It was a non-issue in Spaceflight before 1951 because all three countries with flags were named in the infobox under "firsts" -- I can't see an elegant place to put country names (unless you're fine with me just squeezing them into the first table appearance)

Could you stick a key at the top? Like this?

Key

Nazi Germany

USA

Soviet Union

That would work, I would have thought..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not bad! Where specifically would you put it? --Neopeius (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Just under the "launches" heading, I reckon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Done! --Neopeius (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Image caption is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop

fixed.

• "11 total were launched during the year" - I have always been told not to start a sentence with a number written in digit form

fixed with a semicolon.

• "Launched 7 August" - as a speaker of UK English I would say "Launched on 7 August", but I believe this usage might be OK in US English, can you confirm?

It's goed Ingelsk to me...

• "six R-1s specifically designed equipped" => "six R-1s specifically designed and equipped"

Fixed.

• "had been eclipsed since World War 2" => "had been eclipsed since World War II"

Fixed

• Pipe SCORE (satellite) to hide the disambiguator

Fixed

• "a process that was completed November 1953" - regardless of my comment above, this surely needs to be "a process that was completed in November 1953".......?

Not really, for the same reason. That's pretty standard usage here, in news, newspapers, etc.

• Write Launch service provider in full in the column header

I am hestitant to change the table headers used for the complete series of article. I wonder if it was originally abbreviated for space concerns (this would make it the longest label)

• Ionospheric, Solar, Aeronomy - don't think words other than the first need capital letters

You Are Probably Right.

• "Apogee: 100 kilometres (62 mi) Dogs Dezik and Zhegan were carried in space and were recovered" - there seems to a need for a comma or full stop after the bracket

Or a semi-colon for consistency!

• Legend for the pie chart says USA 24 but the table says 25

PresN's fault. :) Fixed.

• Refs 2, 6, 8, 16, 17 list no work/publisher

Fixed.

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Balon Greyjoy

• "The U.S. Navy fired its powerful Viking sounding" I would replace "fired" with "launched" or "flew" as that seems like a more spaceflight-esque term (I understand it's ambiguous, as weaponized rockets and spaceflight rockets are similar, and sometimes the same). Also, I would remove "powerful" as that seems to already be established by its world-record flight, and "powerful" is a relative term based upon the era of spaceflight.

fixed

• I think the subsection "American" should be "United States" or "USA" to be in line with the rest of the article.
• I would similarly change "Soviet" to "Soviet Union"

fixed

• "By 1950, the ballistic war-head carrying missile," I think this should be clear that this is development of the ballistic missile

fixed

More comments later, but the list looks in good shape! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Sorry I missed your comments! --Neopeius (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Support Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Model for other timelines

Pretty impressive and I will be using it as a framework for my revamp of 1968 in spaceflight. Thanks for all the hard work.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• Seems odd to link Soviet Union when you don't link United States.

When I've linked both, I've been told that the U.S. is common knowledge whereas the USSR, no longer being extant, should be linked.

• "the World Air Sports Federation" does anyone refer to the FAI that way? Or is this contemporaneous?

The source refers to it as "the World Air Sports Federation", and the same language appears in the FLC, Spaceflight before 1951

• "As well, development" reads awkwardly. Do you need "As well,"? Could you not just say "Development also..."?

Fixed.

• "the U.S. Air Force the U.S. Army initiated" missing a word.

fixed

• "The Army, Air Force, and the..." you linked these in the lead, so you can/should relink them in the main body of the article.

fixed

• "sounding rockets" likewise.

fixed

• What is aeronomy?

Wikilinked

• "11 total were" a total of 11 were

fixed.

• "effects. [3]" no space before refs.

fixed.

• "U.S. Navy built" -> "U.S. Navy-built"

fixed.

• "The first generation of U.S. Navy built Viking sounding" uses the word Viking three times in one sentence...

I think it's justified in that sentence, especially since one is a mission name.

• "domestically built" hyphenate.

hypens not used after adjectives.

• "in November 1950. In January 1951" repetitive.

Disagree.

• "November 1951, [8]" no space before ref.

Fixed.

• "ICBM" explain that before using the initialism.

Fixed.

• "Wehrner von Braun" it's Wehrner.

You mean "Wernher" :) Fixed.

• "propellants, JATOs, and" what are JATOs? Suggest a footnote.

It's wikilinked. Does it really need further explanation?

• "Redstone missile" put missile in the pipe so it's not confused with the location of Redstone.

Good idea.

• "the NRL team" rugby league team??

Fixed.

• "the Aerobee rocket, joined" overlinked,

Fixed.

• Link cosmic ray.

Fixed.

• "the Russian-designed" shouldn't that be Soviet-designed?

Fixed.

• " 1953)[5]:69–70" full stop missing.

Fixed.

• "3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) range" should use adj=on

I'm not familiar with that one. Could you format the entire string for my reference? Thank you.

That takes me to Launches. Plenty of work to do here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much! All changes made or addressed. @The Rambling Man: --Neopeius (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back, @The Rambling Man:!

• "LSP" shouldn't be using initialisms before they are explained, even if they are linked.

This is fundamental to the template. I am hesitant to make changes that will affect all of the other timeline articles. I also don't actually know how to do it.

• Where things like "flight number" don't exist, don't just use a blank cell, put a centred en-dash or something in there, or even {{n/a}}.

Current convention appears to be blank cells. That usage was FL-approved for Spaceflight before 1951

• Tables should use captions per MOS:ACCESS.

I would be grateful for suggested implementations.

• Ref 11 and 12 should use unspaced en-dash, not spaced hyphen.

Titles taken directly from the articles. Literal cut and pastes.

• Ref 15 should use en-dash in year range.

Again..

• "1950s in transport" why?

This seems to be an artifact that predates my involvement. The Spaceflight before 1951 is also a member of the category, but none of the other timeline articles. I have deleted the category for both (but added the Category:Timeline_of_spaceflight_working_group_articles to 1951).

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! --Neopeius (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:, @Balon Greyjoy:, @Gog the Mild:, @Hawkeye7:, @ChrisTheDude:, @PresN: What do you think? --Neopeius (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Grapple X

• As above, captions for the tables would be preferred. Given that you have a heading for each month, I would suggest removing those as heading levels and inserting them as table captions instead, they'll display a little smaller and centred as a result but should give a screen reader an anchor for each one, you can then use the {{anchor}} template to continue the horizontal TOC's functionality.

I am reluctant to change the style that was hashed out for Spaceflight before 1951 article, which got its style during the FLC process (it is currently the only Timeline FLC and serves as a model).

I hadn't actually looked at the page code for this and it seems this is a moot point; buried in the templating for the tables is a caption field detectable by screen-readers and not displayed visibly, so this is actually not a problem. Just make sure if you're continuing a series of these that fields like |caption={{sronly|January launches}} are retained in future, that achieves what I was asking for here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup -- I am going through the articles one by one and fixing them. I've done through 1954. Ibemichael is cleaning up the launch lists nicely.

• I know they're copied from the sources but we're still okay to switch the hyphens in ref titles for dashes and this should be done, we don't need to mimic another venue's formatting verbatim.

Is there guidance for switching punctuation? Do we just like the way emdashes look on WP?

It's mostly about internal consistency; we would also, for example, change a block-capital article title to title casing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thanks.

• The draft plan for the ambitious 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) range R-3—compare this to the lead's 100-kilometre (62 mi) boundary of space, this former usage shouldn't show in plural (ie it should be "3,000 kilometre (1,900 mi) range"). If you add |adj=on to the convert template it should display correctly. Check for consistent use of this throughout; when a distance is being used as an adjective you want to make sure the unit isn't in the plural.

Ah, that's what the |adj=on notation does. :) Now can you tell me how to force American spelling on it? :)

Sure, if you add |sp=us to the template it'll spell it the wrong way for you. :) 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I see what you did there. It's just a matter of article consistency. :) Is there a way to force American spelling throughout the article? There are a lot of kms...

• Not sure why the lead links the Soviet Union and not the United States, I know one is extant and the other isn't but this looks inconsistent at first blush. If you want to skip linking the US, you could delink the USSR too as both are linked to elsewhere anyway. Either way works.

This gets brought up in every article I do. If I link United States, it's unlinked as pedantic. If I leave it unlinked, I'm told it needs to be linked. :) The weight seems heavier on the unlinking, so that's the policy I've followed, and that's how it is in the FLC Spaceflight before 1951, which I'm using as my guide.

Hmm. Not a big issue but having two similar terms side by side and treated differently does feel a little odd. I'll defer to previous usage on this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• that brief (~15 minutes) exposure—this feels very informal, I would use a tilde for "approximately" in shorthand but I'm not familiar with it being used in formal settings, can we spell this out with a word instead (roughly, approximately, etc)?

Fixed, thank you.

• Introduction of acronyms seems inconsistent but I'm not familiar with aeronautical conventions here; we have for example free rockets, solid propellants, JATOs, and related items with JATO explained only as a pipe link, but also the United States Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) team where the acronym is spelt out at first use. I believe the latter is preferable but let me know if this is common usage in the field.

Clarified.

• A very minor quibble but when it comes to image use, we have two tall images displaying essentially on top of each other, and in some displays the second one runs into the following heading, there is then just plain text for a while before the tables begin. Is there a relevant image that might fit in the "Spacecraft development" heading which we could use instead of the R-1 diagram? This is entirely an optional aside though.

I see your point. Is it any better on the left? I couldn't find great illustrations for this article -- the R-1 diagram seemed the most appropriate and reflective of the era.

It's a fine image, it's just a little awkward to place--the problem with rockets, I suppose, is that they're so thin and long that they demand a certain image ratio. I think it looks better at present; there's some mild sandwiching but I don't think it's a tremendous problem (and wouldn't be an issue on mobile devices). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• versions of which ultimately launched America's first artificial satellite, in 1958, and America's first astronaut, in 1961. This appears to be uncited, but also I don't see the value in egg links for these either; suggest naming Shepard and Explorer-1 in text, and appending a citation to this.

Fixed.

• All I have for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Thanks for your attention! I am out of position this weekend, but I will address your issues next week when I am back in town. :)

@Grapple X: Sorry for the pushback on some of the items. Your points are all well taken, but many address issues that have been wrangled and resolved in previous articles. --Neopeius (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy enough at this point to support; not collapsing the above just yet as there are a few points given in reply but I'm happy with the article at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Addressed all issues -- one question re: global Yankification of spelling... --Neopeius (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It's just a matter of adding that extra field to every use of the convert template, but a find-and-replace for "{{convert|" to "{{convert|sp=us|" should do it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Ugh. I think I'll just leave it even though the top of the page says "AMERICAN ENGLISH!" :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Should be fixed for you now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [14].

---

Yash Chopra filmography

Nominator(s): Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The filmography of the well-known Indian director and producer Yash Chopra. I really believe this list meets the FL criteria. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

;Comments credited for changing the "face of romance to become a brand" => credited for "changing the face of romance to become a brand" Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) it was one of the Indian first film => it was one of the first Indian films Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Chopra, in 1970, founded => In 1970 Chopra founded Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) most of his films are romantics => most of his films were romances Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) His career had begun to revive since its premire in 1989 => His career began to revive since its premiere in 1989 Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Although did not succeeded at the Indian box office, it was in foreign countries => Although it did not succeed at the Indian box office, it performed well in foreign countries Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Parampara is the last film directed by Chopra but was not produced under his company => Parampara was the last film directed by Chopra but not produced under his company Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reviewers were critical to it because of its cliché storyline => reviewers were critical of it because of its clichéd storyline Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) with he serving as a director => with Chopra serving as a director Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) attract an enough audience => attracted a large enough audience Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) After producing several well-performed films include => After producing several well-performed films including Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) which critics lauded its sensitive portrayal => which critics lauded for its sensitive portrayal Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• His birth year of 1932 is not supported by the provided reference.

Yes, it is. Look at the second slide of the ref #1 --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• named Yash Raj Films Remove "named".

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• emerged as a commercial success in both India and overseas Use of "emerge" here seems strange.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• family who are Reword - family is singular.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Is Rediff.com considered reliable?

Yes, it is. Rediff.com is the oldest Indian website, and many GA/FA about Indian films used it as a source. Many of the writers are also notable, like Dinesh Raheja, Sukanya Verma, Shobha Warrier, and Raja Sen. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• it was because action and crime films --> "this was because action and crime films"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• one of his career's best films --> "one of his best films"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• incest-themed Is incest really a theme?

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the use of checkmarks in the table. Could you maybe use {{yes}}?

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Overall, pretty good work. I'll be glad to see another featured director's filmography. ~ HAL333 20:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Full stop missing in the alt text.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• You can mention in the table that 'Jab Tak Hai Jaan' was his posthumous release.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• older brother --> elder brother

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• The only image File:Yash Chopra 2012.jpg – is licenced under CC Attr 3.0, and reviewed in an OTRS ticket. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*"he was credited" by whom? Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) "India and overseas" in 1959, could you clarify where overseas please? Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) "failed to do well" perform, not do. Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) "produced Daag three years" any info on that? Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) "only box office success" what's the definition of that? I don't find any issues with it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) "His career began..." whose? Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) A couple of sentences here with "and ... and ..." which isn't great prose. Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) The film you describe "about incest" is noted as a "Indian romantic musical drama film" in our article. Somewhat different tone... From ref #14: "With shades of incest, Lamhe caused more than a flutter and remained the talk of the town till the time Chopra introduced Shah Rukh to film audiences as an anti-hero with Darr." —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) "attracted a large enough audience to be declared as a commercial success" what is that benchmark? Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) "The film won several best film awards at major award " film film award award, repetitive. Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) "banner's films" what? Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) "became the last film" was the last film. Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) You link " Filmfare Award for Best Director" once but none of the other awards. Table is sortable so all linked items should be linked each time. Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Please forgive me if I screw anything up...

• the drama Waqt about a family who are separated after a natural disaster. — kinda awkward
• won him a first Best — a first for him or something else?
• popularity had begun to → popularity began to
• feature was named as the — delete "as" as redundant
• were popular among the audience — were the films box office successes? Or did audiences give them positive reviews? Clarify
• Also "the audience" is kinda vague
• several well-performing films — kinda vague. Can we be more specific (e.g. commercial and critical successes)?
• films including Mohabbatein (2000) — should there be a comma after "films"?
• for its sensitive portrayal — WP:VOICEy

Ping me once these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, and on an unrelated note, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [15].

---

Regine Velasquez discography

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list after working on getting the singer's list of songs, awards, and filmography to FL status. It has gone through a copy-edit to improve the lead. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated.

A pre-emptive comment – The Philippines does not have albums and singles charts that is comparable or equivalent to America's Billboard charts, Australia's ARIA Charts or Japan's Oricon, thus the exclusion of peak chart position columns. The trade organization that awards certifications in the Philippines is PARI, and I’ve included certification sales figure threshold changes over the years. I’ve tried my best to thoroughly search for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, in this case you would find sourcing that only list sales figure or certifications awarded only, where applicable EFNs are included to hopefully help clarify. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead Why are "compilation albums" and "greatest hits albums" tallied separately? A greatest hits album is by definition a compilation album...... Merged and updated count and lead introduction. "Her succeeding studio albums" - "Her subsequent studio albums" would be more natural English (this applies in two places) Done Missing full stop after "Velasquez is the best-selling Filipino artist of all time" Done That's all I got on the lead, will look at the rest later...... -- 07:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Thanks for your initial review ChrisTheDude! Addressed above comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• My only comments on the tables are about the "promotional singles". What distinguishes a promotional single from a "normal" single? I also checked a couple of the sources - ref 104 just links to the album on Apple Music and confirms that the track was on it but doesn't say anything about it being released as a "promotional single"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, I've listed under the "promotional singles" table those that were recorded/released as main theme songs for reality shows, drama series, charity singles (e.g. Dept. of Tourism campaign or Operation SMILE). I've added efns along with the in-line citations to clarify the singles' intended release. As for Ref 104, I have replaced this with an official link to Universal Record's YT channel for the promotional single/video for this tribute album, it appears that from the comments made by the label it was somewhat intended as promotional rather than commercial/normal single (it was also the only single released from this album). Hope that helps clarify. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*"five extended plays," put (EPs) after as there's no explanation for that abbreviation use in the infobox. Done "with VIVA Records " our article calls it Viva, not VIVA. It is alternatively stylized as VIVA, but made the change according to article. "her eponymous debut album that" given it was just called Regine, perhaps say that instead of eponymous. Done "which won her" her choice of songs didn't win, it was her performance, so perhaps "and won" instead of "which won". Done Link cover version. Linked Why isn't Reason Enough linked? This is the only studio album that currently has no article yet. I was unsure if it's meant to be red-linked or unlinked. I went with the latter instead. "The album has sold" as of when? Clarified "and signed with Los Angeles-based producer Mark J. Feist's MJF Company, and released" and ... and, too many follow-ons. Split and fixed Link "certified". Linked "certified twelve-times platinum " by whom? Done. Certified by PARI "the Westin Philippine Plaza" in Manila. Done "were released a month earlier in September" don't need both. Fixed Where is WW, CHN, THA etc? Needs key/abbreviation hover-over text. Added hover-text (for PHI, only in the first instance) Don't split Book sources into columns. Done That's all I have on a first quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Thanks The Rambling Man, have addressed the above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• The only image in the article (File:RVA in 2019.jpg) is from Flickr, licenced under CC 2.0 licence. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• Great job with this list. I only have one minor comment. Could you provide further context for the infobox's image caption? It would be nice clarify where she is performing. Like is it a part of a tour, a one-off event, or something else entirely? Once this has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. You have done excellent work with the Regine Velasquez articles and lists. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time in reviewing Aoba47, fixed the infobox caption and clarified. Pseud 14 (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. I support the FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Resolved comments from Pamzeis (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I screw something up... artist) and twenty — should there be a MOS:SERIAL comma given that all other instances use one? Done first single "Love Me Again" in 1986 — unless she has more than one first single (is that even possible?), there should be commas around "'Love Me Again'" Fixed the name Chona — can we clarify that this is the artist's name and not, say, the song's name? i think "under the name Chona" explains it well enough and the next sentence suggests that she adopted the stage name Regine subsequently. Believe that should help clarify it, since songs/singles are enclosed in quotation marks, names aren't. Contest performing the songs — should there be a comma after "Contest"? Fixed fourth studio album Reason Enough — add a comma after "album" Fixed her fifth studio album Listen Without Prejudice in — commas around "Listen Without Prejudice" Fixed the lead single "In Love With You", a duet — unless there is more than one lead single, add a comma after "single" Fixed As of 2014, the album has sold — any updates (obviously, it's fine if there aren't)? It still stands as it is. Kept the year of publication as mentioned in the source/reference. were released in the region — the region of... Asia? Isn't Asia a continent? Region, would refer to Southeast Asia and East Asian regions (within Asia) where the album was only released. It wasn't widely available in the continent as a whole. Los Angeles-based producer Mark J. Feist's MJF Company — probably just my personal preference but I think this bit would flow better with "Mark J. Feist's" at the start I believe this was addressed by comments from TRM, I'd like to stick to it. album by a female artist in the Philippines → album by a female Filipino artist (nitpick-y but it makes it more concise) I think it makes more sense to keep it as is. Since style/convention in WP is e.g. Best selling album by an artist in the United States and not Best Selling male/female American artist / Best Selling album by an American artist. The second paragraph appears to contradict itself. First, it says Listen Without Prejudice is the best-selling album of her career, and then, it says R2K is the best-selling album by a female Filipino artist (and thus, that would make it the best-selling album of her career) Listen Without Prejudice overall is her best selling which includes sales in Asia. That's why I would like to keep "in the Philippines" to distinguish the two, since R2K's record is purely in the Philippines. Velasquez released the soundtrack → Velasquez starred in the soundtrack (technically, Velasquez didn't release it) I'm not sure I follow you on this, but it's a generally accepted wording to write that an artist released a soundtrack album. What does it have to do with starring on it? Velasquez did star in the film of the same name and at the same time released a soundtrack album for the movie. Its lead single served — can "namesake" be added in front of "lead" so readers know the single's name? The lead single (Kailangan Ko'y Ikaw) is the album title and the movie title as well. It would be redundant mention it twice. At the same time it's piped/linked to the album article. That should help clarify it. her first live album Regine Live — comma after "album" Done introduced a gospel inspired album — I believe there should be a hyphen between "gospel inspired" Done gospel inspired album, Hulog Ka Ng Langit (2013), which — I do not think the commas are necessary as it is not the only gospel-inspired album (in the world) Done Its singles "Tadhana" and "Hugot" were — unless there are more singles, add commas around "'Tadhana' and 'Hugot'" Don't think it's necessary on this one. I'm also not sure why "Tadhana" links to UDD (band) Unlinked and a further million and a half in Asia → and a further million and a half in other parts of Asia Done According to PARI — should it be the PARI? PARI would be succinct, it's usually referred to as PARI without any article preceding it. Ping me once these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC) @Pamzeis: Thanks. Addressed the above, comments especially with concerns I raised re use of commas, etc. I've had this copy-edited by GOCE before nominating, which I think any issues with comma usage would have been addressed satisfactorily, unless some may have been missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the response. I only raised concerns about commas per MOS:COMMA. If you disagree, that's fine but I'll have to refrain from supporting for now. I hope you understand. On an unrelated note, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC) @Pamzeis: addressed/fixed per MOS:COMMA, let me know if there's anything outstanding from the list? Pseud 14 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied enough to support. I apologise if I came off as hostile in any way as that was not my intention. I have to say, your work on Regine Velasquez-related articles is truly impressive. Pamzeis (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Pamzeis:, much appreciated. And no apologies needed. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [16].

---

Nicolas Cage filmography

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded its lead, added over 100 sources (one for each of his films), and followed all of the criteria necessary to make this a FL. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "The following year, he made his feature film acting debut on Fast Times at Ridgemont High" => "The following year, he made his feature film acting debut in Fast Times at Ridgemont High"
• "the second and last time he was credited as Nicolas Coppola" - maybe worth specifically stating that this is his birth name
• "for his role on Moonstruck" => "for his role in Moonstruck"
• "he lent his voice as Grug" => "he voiced the character of Grug"
• "Direct-to-VOD" - link/explain VOD. I had to stop and think for a moment what it stood for.
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• Surely there's a better image of Cage than that... If you found other images relevant to a specific film/period, I would add them next to the table.

I mean, there's this but I don't see the need for a change since the current image is clear and has a description related to one of his films. Additional images were removed after they started causing line breaks. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I'll leave it up to you.02:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Best of Times being unaired is unsourced.

 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I like the lead's scope. Covers the important areas.
• I'm liking all the Roger Ebert references.
• Is the Rotten Tomatoes summary really the most important/notable commentary on Valley Girl?

Well it's a consensus compiling 30 reliable reviews, so yes? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's just kind of bland in my opinion, but it's your list in the end. Not a big deal. ~ HAL333 02:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• the character of Grug --> "the character Grug" more concise

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• The use of "straight-to-video" as a verb is a little weird. Maybe change to "some of which were straight-to-video". More concise as well

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• his highest-grossing film at the box office Is "at the box office" needed?

 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would standardize the table notes. For example, "Producer" versus "Also producer".

I did it that way to make it consistent with other FL-articles, like this one passed in July. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

More comments later. Nice work. ~ HAL333 20:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Mental Floss isn't really a high quality RS. You could replace with Vulture.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That's all I got, but I'll go ahead and support. ~ HAL333 14:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*"began his career in 1981 with The Best of Times, a television pilot" as an actor or a producer?  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC) And link pilot.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "the second and last time he was credited " when was the first time? ... with The Best of Times. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC) First two paras of the lead take us to 1989. As per the table, Cage's career was MASSIVE after 1989. This looks totally out of balance.  Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "Cage hosted Saturday Night Live and earned" don't assume people know this is a TV show, and it has no relevance to the "and earned" clause.  Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC) "made his directorial debut with Sonny" curious, you said up front he was an actor/producer, but not director. I feel that it's misleading to list someone as a director when throughout their career they have produced at least a dozen films and starred in over 100 projects but have only directed once. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC) " his most recent" what year? "In 2002 ... earned him his most recent Best Actor nominations" 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC) That's all I have on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• The only image (File:Nicolas Cage - KirkWeaver.jpg) is from Flickr, under CC 2.0 licence. It also has ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

• role in the television pilot The Best of Times — WP:SEAOFBLUE?
• The following year, he made his feature film acting debut in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, the second and last time he was credited by his birth name as Nicolas Coppola before changing his name professionally to avoid nepotism allegations due to his connection to the Coppola family. — this sentence seems a tad long
• In 1983, Cage was cast in a leading — this sentence seems to be unsourced unless you mean he starred and acted instead of "was cast"
• That same year, he — 1986 or 1987?
• self-indulgent performance." — per MOS:LQ, move the full stop outside the quotation mark
• In 1992, earned his — missing word there
• Globe nomination, this time for — I think ", this time" is unnecessary
• I'm unsure about this but is the hyphen in "critically-acclaimed" necessary?
• received a nomination for the BAFTA Award for → received a BAFTA Award nomination for (nitpick-y but more concise)
• Three years later, he starred as a suicidal alcoholic in the critically-acclaimed Leaving Las Vegas and received a nomination for the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role, and earned the Golden Globe for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama and the Academy Award for Best Actor. — a tad long
• "In Cage's hands, cartoonish moments are imbued with real emotion and real emotions become cartoons. Everything – from individual scenes down to single lines of dialogue – feels like they have been embraced as opportunities for creation. Cage is usually interesting even when his films are not. He is erratic and unpredictable; he is captivating and he is capricious. He is a performer. He is a troubadour. He is a jazz musician." — this quote seems quite long and takes up, by my count, over 10% of the article's prose
• most notable films — how is it determined which films are the most notable?

Ping me when these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Seeing as you seem to be rewriting the lead following TRM's suggestion, I will hold off supporting this list until then. Please ping me once this has been done. Pamzeis (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis:  Already done I expanded the third paragraph to address their comment weeks ago. They then collapsed their edits so I believe the suggestion has been properly addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, apologies for that. I thought that since you did not put "done" under the suggestion, it was not, well, done. You now have my support. On an unrelated note, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [17].

---

List of songs written by Bruno Mars

Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive look at Bruno Mars' written songs up to today. It contains an introduction and a list of the written songs, their respective writers', albums they were included, and the year of release. I'll try to update it constantly as new songs are released like I have done with all the works for the artist mentioned above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from ChrisTheDude

• No need for the dashes around the titles of his albums
• "as well as other artists" => "as well as for other artists"
• "They also co-wrote songs to soundtracks" => "They also co-wrote songs for soundtracks"
• "As well as these artists, Mars co-wrote" - I would just say "Mars also co-wrote"
• Need a comma after World Cup to close the clause
• "Jay-Z & Kanye West "Lift Off"" => "Jay-Z & Kanye West's "Lift Off""
• And you need a comma after that, otherwise it reads as if "Welcome Back" was also by Jay-Z and Kanye
• Apostrophe missing after Sugababes in the Garibay caption
• The artist column should sort by surname (where the person has one), not forename, so for example Adam Lambert should sort under L, not A
• Song and album titles which start with the word "The" should sort based on the next word in the title
• In note a, the mixtape title should be in italics
• Notes which are not complete sentences (eg "Alternate title "Mister Johnny".") should not have full stops
• That's what I got on a first pass...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude I believe I have addressed the issues you pointed out. However, I'm uncertain regarding the "surname" advice o rappers. Should it also be done? Thank you so much for taking your time. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support - the name sorting looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I am uncertain about the first sentence. Is it necessary to list out the names of all his studio albums? In this FL (List of songs written by Tove Lo), the lead only lists the number of studio albums that the artist had released. I am only suggesting this because it makes the prose more concise and I am assuming that Mars will continue to release albums in the future so it would avoid having a rather long list of title right at the top of the page.
• For this part, and create "a hip-hop, R&B, soul or rock" song, would be it worthwhile to link the genres? This seems to be a standard practice for song and album articles, but II am not entirely sure how this is handled for this type of list.
• I think that this part, Mars explained the record was going to be a movie, could use a little more clarification to avoid any confusion that this was literally going to used as the basis for a future movie or it would be a visual album. I think this sentence from the 24K Magic article expresses this a little more clearly: He told that the album was inspired by a non-existent movie that he visualized.
• In the third paragraph, there are two sentences (i.e. He also co-wrote Cardi B's "Please Me" and He co-wrote Alicia Keys's "Tears Always Win") in a row that begin the same. I would revise one of these instances to avoid being repetitive.
• I have a question about this sentence, He co-wrote Alicia Keys's "Tears Always Win", Adele's "All I Ask" for her third studio album, 25 (2015), Jay-Z & Kanye West's "Lift Off", and "Welcome Back" for the soundtrack of Rio 2. Why are two albums named (i.e. 25 and Rio 2). but not (Girl on Fire or Watch the Throne)? It just seems a little random to only mention two albums here.

Great work with the list. I am glad to see a FLC about songwriting. My comments are relatively minor and once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this nomination for promotion. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Aoba47 Thank you for the compliment, as well as the comments. I believe I have addressed every issue. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – Reliability of the sourcing appears okay throughout. There's one formatting issue that needs to be resolved: ref 126 is giving me a red error message. The problem appears to be that there is a space in the url. Try putting %20 where the space should be, as Help:Footnotes calls for that; my hunch is that will resolve the issue. Also, the link-checker tool doesn't seem to like the Global Music Rights site, so I suggest double-checking a couple of them to make sure the links are still in working order. Otherwise, it showed no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 First of all, thank you for taking your time to comment on the article and making the source review. I checked all the Global Music Rights and they all work, I also fixed the issue on reference 126. If anything else rises an eyebrow just let me know. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 126 looks fine now. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

*Where is note 1 referenced? You asked for this on the current FL List of songs written by Emeli Sandé. However, there was no need to provide a source, if you check some of the ASCAP sources, some songs are credited under his full name and not his musician name. Do you want me to use one of these? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Then you should have been prepared for it! Notes need references. This is FL, not GA or some other process. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC) But no source was provided, that's what I was trying to say. However, it has been addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC) CeeLo is unspaced according to our article, but in any case, you have both variants in the article so please be consistent. "Mars' " -> Mars's per our MOS. Check all of these. "used by Coca-Cola as the theme for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and Matisyahu's "One Day", used as NBC's 2010 Winter Olympics theme." where are these claims referenced? "had a small role" minor. I don't understand what I'm supposed to do here? Replace small with minor? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC) replace "small" with "minor". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "Emile Haynie and several" comma after Haynie. "producer and songwriter D'Mile to help them."where is this cited? Call "Anderson Paak" consistently. "Thomas Callaway" this needs a footnote to explain it's CeeLo Green.  Not done The wikilink goes for his page, not sure if it needs. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Sortable table means linked items should be linked every time. WP: Overlink, Mars name is all over the link and it is a prominent name, the same goes for his most frequent collaborators, everyone is linked at least once. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC) No, sortable tables there's no way of knowing which repeated item will come first so they need linking every time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Fixed, I believe. I just wikilink once Bruno Mars and if the singer and the songwriter have the same name, for example, Travie McCoy. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Ref 9 should be en-dash, not spaced hyphen. Why do we have footnote 1 and then footnotes a to u? That's all I have for a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) The Rambling Man I have addressed most of the issues but left a couple of questions and observations. Thank you for the comments so far. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC) The Rambling Man I believe I have addressed your responses, might have missed a name or two. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC) The Rambling Man All done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Carlobunnie

• The image caption uses the MDY format but the references display as DMY. Since a mix of both formats is used in the editing, I was looking for a date template at the top of the page to explain why this is the case, but it turns out it's at the bottom of the page for some reason, along w one saying to use British English (both dated 2013) for this article? While consistency is necessary, I recall reading somewhere on WP that if an article is for eg. UK/European-based then DMY is the standard, but if it is US-centric, then MDY should be used. Mars' other articles also use MDY and American English, so you should probably move the date template up top, change it to MDY, and remove the BE template.
• The 2nd-to-last sentence of the 2nd pgraph presently reads: "Mars told that the album was inspired by..." - This grammar is incorrect, and should be written as either "Mars has said that..." or "In interviews with the RA+Rap-Up, Mars said that..." based on your attached sources. Though for concision, I think the former would be better.

That's all from me. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Carlobunnie Nice catch, I have fixed it now, I believe. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Not gonna screw anything up... (hopefully)

• various artists, notably on — MOS:EDITORIALISING
• by a non-existent movie → by a non-existent film
• The singer has many — Keys or Mars?
• Be consistent with whether you use the MOS:SERIAL comma or not

Close enough to support. On an unrelated note, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Pamzeis Since he is American let's stick with movie. I have no idea how to keep the structure of the sentence by removing "notably on". Everything else was addressed. Thank You MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 14:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [18].

---

Discography of Sibelius symphony cycles

Nominator(s): Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Having checked the nominated list against the six FL criteria, I believe it's ready for FLC. As the main editor, I have sought to be neutral and comprehensive in my writing, and the list includes extensive citations. All recording dates, venues, and runtimes are sourced directly to the CD (or in the case of one or two entries, LP) liner notes, rather than third party websites such as musicbrainz.org, discogs.com, or musicweb-international.com. (I'd like to here acknowledge, and thank, a handful of users over at talkclassical.com, who generously provided me scans of liner notes in their personal collections... in particular, Kiki was extremely helpful.) Moreover, citation templates have been used. I have also made use of the work of Sibelius biographers and musicologists, especially in relating the importance of the Sibelius cycle and the historical play-by-play. Thank you, in advance, for your comments and for having taken the time to give the list a read through. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Resolved comments from Tim riley talk 13:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Booking my place. Looks top class after first quick read-through. Comments after closer second perusal. Tim riley talk 22:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC) General WP:ENGVAR – I'm not sure whether English or American spelling/vocabulary is intended. "Program" for "programme" suggests AmE, but "gramophone" rather than "phonograph" suggests BrE. Titles: it is usual to give British and Commonwealth conductors their titles, if knighted. This can be a bit of a pain for the editor, as e.g. Colin Davis recorded his Boston cycle when he was Mr Davis and his LSO Live one after becoming Sir Colin, but it's not too difficult to find out which applied at the time of recording/release. At all events, you ought to avoid a hit-and-miss approach, e.g. giving Beecham his title or not, seemingly at random.  Knighted Sirs Thomas, Colin (sans Boston cycle), Simon, Mark, John, and Alexander Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC) I apologise for wittering on about the minutiae of British forms of title, but (i) Colin Davis shouldn't be "Sir" for the Boston cycle though he is rightly Sirred for the later two; (ii) Barbirolli and Gibson were both knighted at the time of their cycles and should be Sirred. Ah, I can't believe I forgot about Gibson and Barbirolli! (I'm ashamed to admit that, in an earlier draft of this article, I had all Sirs properly knighted, but cut the titles after worrying that I wasn't including titles for other nationalities, you know, fairness and all... or are titles a uniquely British thing? Anyway, happy to restore them now.) One question on the timing issue re: Colin Davis. Elsewhere in the table (for reasons of sorting and comparison, as well as having noticed that most record labels update, too), I use the most current title of the orchestra (e.g., for Ehrling in the 1950s, the Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra was called the Stockholm Radio Orchestra). If that's the case, then would consistency demand that all knighthoods be retroactively applied, too? Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Well, my practice is to apply the performer's title current at the relevant time. Some writers use the last current term, which is OK but can lead to e.g. a bizarre index entry for the Elgar Violin Concerto played by a teenage prodigy conducted by the composer: "Lord Menuhin (violin)/London Symphony Orchestra/Sir Edward Elgar". Hmm. Nobody, I think, is going to complain if you use your own discretion here. As to orchestras, I try to use the label current at the time, so that e.g. the Concertgebouw wasn't Royal until it was. But again, I don't think you'll get objections if you choose to standardise on the current title. Tim riley talk 23:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Okay. Thanks for permitting me freedom of choice. I think I'll go the route of standardizing on the current title. Ergo, Davis–Boston will have a 'Sir.' Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Permitting you freedom, forsooth! As if I had authority to permit anything! FAC and FLC reviewers can recommend, but insisting is not on the agenda. Tim riley talk 13:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Lead one of the most significant symphonists" – what did he signify? Perhaps you mean most important or best-known.  Changed to "important" Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC), conducted … on gramophone" – "for the gramophone" would be a more familiar usage.  Corrected Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC) recorded from 1952–55" – alas the eccentricities of the Manual of Style require us to say 1952–1955. God knows why, but there it is.  Corrected Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC) the Sibelius cycle has, to date, been recorded" – WP:DATED" – you need to say what the date is, and the later statement "As of 2021, an additional four projected cycles are in progress, according to press releases" is pushing your luck.  Added month and used {{As of}} Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Notably, a number of conductors" – who say's it's notable?  Deleted Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC) all titans of twentieth century record" – come come! – WP:PEA!  De-puffed! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Ormandy twice tackled the incomplete cycle" – what is "the incomplete cycle"? I suppose this means Ormandy twice recorded an incomplete cycle.  Article changed to "an". Yes, the appropriate phrasing here is}} something that I have struggled to find. As you indicate, the phrase "incomplete cycle" makes very little sense. And yet, "cycle projects that remained incomplete" seems, though most precise, quite laborious. What I know is this: between Karajan, Bernstein, Ormandy, etc. there are a number of notable (oops! we're avoiding that word now) recording projects that encompass 3 or more Sibelius symphonies and, in my opinion, need to be mentioned by this article. Can you perhaps help me brainstorm an alternative to "incomplete cycle"? I'm all ears. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Ah, I realized you may have been being cheeky... haha, are you just asking me to change the article "the" to the article "an"? Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Cheeky! Moi? But yes, that is just what I meant. Tim riley talk 13:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Ha! This is my first time every using "cheeky", and I had to look up the term to make sure it wasn't offensive! Okay, well... then I'll merely change the article to "an" (and make sure there are no other "the incomplete cycles" elsewhere in the article). Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC) The last time anyone called me "cheeky" in Wikipedia was when I suggested that IRCAM in Paris, the home of tuneless composers, stood for I Really Can't Abide Music. Kindly do not mention this to User:Dmass, particularly as fans of Pierre Boulez and a fortiori René Leibowitz seem peculiarly allergic to Sibelius. – Tim riley talk 17:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Haha... well you have a fellow traveler in me, then. Don't even get me started on Leibowitz's asinine Sibelius commentary. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Such a perspective thus conceptualizes Kullervo as Sibelius's de facto "Symphony No. 0" and accordingly expands his completed contributions to the symphonic canon from seven to eight" – here and in the main text: says who? Looks like WP:OR without a citation for the supposed expansion of the canon.  Citation added. The "Symphony No. 0" turn of phrase is}} from Breitkopf & Härtel's own product description: "By the time Sibelius was celebrating his major international triumphs in the early 20th century, his Symphony 'No. 0' was long forgotten... The volumes of the Complete Edition edited by Glenda Dawn Goss now offer a musicologically accurate music text for the first time. This music text forms the basis for the performance material. The complete edition 'Jean Sibelius Werke' intends to pave the way for a new evaluation of the Finnish composer and, in particular, of this hitherto editorially neglected work, the composer's only choral symphony" (emphasis added). So, yes... the conceptualization of Kullervo as the first in a series of eight completed symphonies by Sibelius is certainly "new", a fact that makes Wikipedia's content on Kullervo about a decade out-of-date (Note: I am working on an expansion of the Kullervo article at User:Silence of Järvenpää/Kullervo; this article has a subsection under Analysis that addresses the is-it-or-isn't-it-a-symphony back-and-forth.) Nor is Sibelius musicologist Glenda Dawn Goss a lone wolf: as I have tried to demonstrate, many other Sibelius writers (e.g., Tawaststjerna, Rickards, Barnett, Hurwitz, etc.) have called Kullervo a symphony. Is the problem that the citation chain appears after the first sentence of the paragraph but the "Symphony No. 0" phrase appears in the sentence after? If so, should I move the citation chain to after the second? Or is the solution that you would like to see the Breitkopf & Härtel product description cited immediately after the phrase "Symphony No. 0"? Happy to fix how you see fit. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC) As long as there is a citation the contention that Kullervo can be seen as Symphony No 0 (which is after all hardly a very contentious contention) that's fine with me. Tim riley talk 13:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Okay, then I will add the reference to [19]. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Precursors: 1930–1951 "then in his seventy-fourth year), writing of the septuagenarian conductor" – need we be told a man in his 74th year is a septuagenarian?  Trimmed Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC) "the orchestra was credited as the "Royal Philharmonic Orchestra", the musicians were "largely drawn from the London Symphony [Orchestra], which could not be named for contractual reasons" – not according to the LSO's official discography: here" – see note at the end of entry >0139 on page 243.  Hmmm... well, as I cite in the article... both Tawaststjerna and Layton write that it was the LSO, sneaky style. They hint at contractual issues that prohibited the orchestra from being appropriately identified. Could this also explain why the LSO's own history (which I haven't been able to open on my computer/slow internet) doesn't list the Kajanus No. 1 and No. 2? The Finlandia release (here) lists the ensemble for Nos. 1–2 as "Symphony Orchestra" (playing it safe, I suppose), whereas the Naxos Historical release (here and here) says "Royal Philharmonic Orchestra" on the back cover, but in the liner notes: "London’s Royal Philharmonic Society (the pre-Beecham 'old RPO')". The new release of 'rarities' by Warner Classics (here) calls the group "The Orchestra of the Royal Philharmonic Society", and and earlier re-release by Koch (here) and (here) says "London Symphony Orchestra". Thus, I admit to being perplexed, but as always, tend to trust Tawaststjerna. (Note: I did just purchase the Warner Classics set, and once it arrives in the mail I can see if the liner notes shed any light for us.) Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC) "Fifth (22–23 June) symphonies" – 22 to 24 June according to the LSO  Hmmm... well, here's the link... to the liner notes of the Naxos Historical release: https://www.naxos.com/SharedFiles/pdf/rear/8.111395r.pdf#.Unfortunately, I cannot get the link you sent about the LSO's own records to open on my computer/slow internet. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC) "Each of Kajanus's recordings were world premieres – "each" takes a singular verb  Corrected Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC) "prevented these from coming to fruition – a lot of words to say "prevented it".  Corrected Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC) "would knock Schnéevoigt's Sixth from its perch" – rather slangy for the formal prose of an encylopaedia?  De-slanged; changed to "displaced" Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC) "According to Robert Layton, Sibelius is said to have referred to Beecham's Sixth as "his favorite recording of any of his symphonies" – did Layton – an English writer, and a good one too – really misspell "favourite" as "favorite"?  Changed to "favourite" Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC) "to guest conduct the BBC Symphony Orchestra at Queen's Hall" – it is usual to give the Queen's Hall its definite article  Corrected Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Complete cycles "conducted many of Sibelius's symphonies on gramophone" – not normal English usage. "For the gramophone" would be normal  Corrected Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC) "both Metronome … and Decca each began cycles" – either "both" or "each", but not the two of them at once.  Deleted "both", retained "each" Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC) "(the U.S. distributor was Epic)" – here and elsewhere you mention American distribution but not that of other countries. Why single out the US?  This is a good point; however, I... include the U.S. distributors for a couple of reasons: 1) along with Britain, the U.S. was the biggest market for Sibelius's music; 2) I figured many readers would be more familiar, e.g., with Epic as the distributor for Watanabe I rather than Nippon Columbia... thus, I thought it would be important to signal to them that the Nippon Columbia set was the same as the Epic set (I applied the same logic to the Mercury release of Metronome's Ehrling cycle; and, 3) oftentimes, the British distributor (again, along with the U.S., the most important market) was the original label, e.g., HMV/EMI. Is there a solution that would make you happy? I'm all ears! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC) As long as you are happy that you have presented a good global balance, rather than one confined to the US, I have no objections. Tim riley talk 23:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Thanks. I am happy, i.e., I think there is global balance due to the natural emphasis on Britain. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC) "with Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra" – normal usage would be "the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra"  Corrected Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC) "43 times across 30 conductors" – unexpected choice of preposition  Changed to "by" Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC) "ten are Finns" – as some of them are dead "are or were" might be advisable here  Changed Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Table: entry 30 misspells the recording company's name  Corrected spelling Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Complete cycles that include Kullervo "Notably, Kullervo eschews obvious categorization" – we could do without the editorial "notably".  Deleted Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Notable incomplete Sibelius cycles: 1952–present Somewhat tendentious title. "Notable" according to whom?  Changed to "Select incomplete cycles" Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC) "Karajan (then in the employ of Legge's EMI)" – Karajan contracted with EMI to record for that company but was never an employee of Legge or EMI.  Changed to "under contract with" Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC) "Nos. 4–5, recorded in 1952; and, Tapiola, 1953]" – two things here: "4–5", rather than "4 and 5" looks odd and the comma before Tapiola looks odder.  Both changes made Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC) "other notable incomplete Sibelius cycles" – another unsubstantiated "notable"  Deleted Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC) "the orchestra he led for over three decades" – a usage best avoided, as in British and Commonwealth usage the leader of the orchestra is the principal violinist (Konzertmeister).  Changed to "conducted" Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Table: poor old DG is misspelled again in the Bernstein row.  Corrected spelling Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Notes Note G: your link to Julius Ruthström takes the reader to a page in Swedish Wikipedia. You shouldn't spring surprises like that on your readers, but should make it clear that it is a cross-Wiki link. One way is like this (from Carnival of the Animals): Turban. I haven't checked, but if there are any other links to non-English Wikipedias you should do likewise for them.  Done, I would like to note, however, that... this request surprised me, because I had previously picked up on other editors switching from the format you requested to the (new?) alternative of, e.g., [[:fi:Petri Sakari|Petri Sakari]]. The advantage of this method is that it looks much cleaner and avoids red links, but the obvious disadvantage, as you noted in your review, is that it surprises the reader. I have changed them, but I would be curious to know what the policy is on this according to MOS. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Well, well! I may be out of date on the WP policy on this, and would welcome comments from better-informed editors. Tim riley talk 22:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Note H: "he also recorded the Second two times" – strange English. "Twice" would be normal here.  Changed Silence of Järvenpää (talk) Note J: "comprise" is exactly the wrong verb here: the cycle comprises the programmes, not vice versa.  Changed to "correspond to" Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC) That seems like a longish list of quibbles, and so let me conclude by saying that this seems to me an impressive article, thoroughly researched and scrupulously cited. I look forward to supporting its elevation to FL. – Tim riley talk 09:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only quibble left undealt with is the one about the LSO recording dates in 1932, a matter so minor as to be barely discernible with the naked eye. Do sort it out if you can, but I'm not delaying my support on that account. So, I'm adding my support for the elevation of this article to FL. It seems to me to meet all the criteria, and I found it a pleasure to read and to review. A first rate piece of work, in my view. Tim riley talk 13:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I have long admired your work on the English/British classical music scene; indeed, their quality is what encouraged me to, when I have time, work hard on the Sibelius/Finland classical articles. Glad you enjoyed this one and found it a good read. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Note I haven't read through all the above comments :-) "(released by Mercury Records in the U.S.)" why mention the US? Why not Britain, or some other country?  Done The review above had the same thought. I will cut and paste my response to him here: "Include the U.S. distributors for a couple of reasons: 1) along with Britain, the U.S. was the biggest market for Sibelius's music; 2) I figured many readers would be more familiar, e.g., with Epic as the distributor for Watanabe I rather than Nippon Columbia... thus, I thought it would be important to signal to them that the Nippon Columbia set was the same as the Epic set (I applied the same logic to the Mercury release of Metronome's Ehrling cycle; and, 3) oftentimes, the British distributor (again, along with the U.S., the most important market) was the original label, e.g., HMV/EMI." Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC) "Karajan left three incomplete cycles, one with the Philharmonia Orchestra and two with the Berlin Philharmonic respectively" - no reason for that last word  Done Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC) "With the Schnéevoigt recordings lacking favour" - last word uses the British English spelling, but elsewhere you have words like "conceptualizes" which use the US English spelling - pick one or other and be consistent  Done Oops... Changed to "favor" (not having "favourite", however, since it is a direct quote from a British author). Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Notes r and s are not full sentences so should not have full stops  Done Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC) That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC) Thanks!! I appreciate your time. I do hope that the article will now have your support. Warmly, Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Hi @ChrisTheDude – Just a courtesy ping that your concerns were addressed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I completely forgot about this one. I'll give it another proper look over the weekend..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Sorry, one more question from me. How come symphony 5 in the incomplete Karajan cycle has two different runtimes listed......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Well, I am not 100% sure, but it appears to me (per the source) that Karajan did two recordings of Symphony 5, thats why 2 runtimes. The nominator is not very active on Wikipedia from last month, still pinging them @Silence of Järvenpää if then could clarify further.... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Works for me - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• All column headers need colscopes (e.g. `! style="width:11em"; rowspan=2 | Conductor` should be `! style="width:11em"; rowspan=2 scope=col | Conductor`), including the "secondary" column headers (runtimes 1, 2, etc.). This, combined with the rowscopes you already have, lets non-visual screen reader software accurately read out what cells go with what columns.

 Doing... Sorry, I learn by example and am not that great at the technical elements of Wikipedia code. Would you be kind enough to help me? Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Basically, whenever you define a column you should include a "scope=col" in the code, so in your case it would be (in full) "! style="width:11em"; rowspan=2 scope=col | Conductor". Check out what I did here and try to replicate it for the other tables. This is one of those new accessibility things we've been trying to incorporate

Done – I have addressed this in these edits. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need captions- e.g. at the top of the table code put `|+ table_caption_text`. If this text would duplicate a nearby section header, you can hide it from visual browsers like |+ {{sronly|table_caption_text}}. This allows non-visual screen reader software to jump straight to a named table without having to read out all the text above it to find it. --PresN 16:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Doing... Sorry, I learn by example and am not that great at the technical elements of Wikipedia code. Would you be kind enough to help me? Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Have added these myself, no worries! Aza24 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Done – I have addressed this in these edits. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Well I already looked at the sources when we were discussing at my talk page, but let's see what I find now...! Aza24 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Version reviewed: [20]

Formatting

• Generally page ranges are "pp." and single pages are "p." this is by no means required, but is the standard, if you are so inclined
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The linear notes look fine, there is a lot so hopefully I didn't miss any inconsistencies....

Reliability

• No issues, great sourcing!

Verifiability

• Refs 32, 117, 119 and 127 aren't connecting to their respective Sources (check for typos or incorrect years and then make sure they connect when you hover over them)
  • Done 3 of 4 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ewen and Goss could do with an identifier or some sort, ISBN or OCLC maybe? Aza24 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Added OCLC – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24 – Thanks for the source review. I have fixed almost everything, and added missing sources for the Sfns with harv error (which were difficult to find, give that I know very less about this list). 3 of the 4 errors are now resolved, but I'm not able to find the source for the remaining one (Ref#117). Should I just remove it as the same info could be verified by other given sources too. Please suggest. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for stepping in here Kavyansh.Singh. I'm not sure where Silence of Järvenpää has gone, but they were awfully excited about this list, so it would be a shame to see all this work fail FLC. I'm thinking the ref in question is for this publication, would you concur? Aza24 (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24 – Thanks for the link, but it appears that I have used the same booklet for Ref#32, which too appears to refer to this one. Are both the references same.... Silence of Järvenpää has made around 10 edits in last 30 days. Indeed this is an excellent list, and I want it to pass the nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh I think it must be to the same score, especially per the roman numerals in the preface, presumably SoJ accidentally cited it differently. The information for ref 32 also seems to be cited on page xi. Does that seems sound? On another note, I'm going to attempt to combine some of refs in a row to one to hopefully help things move along. Aza24 (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have merged both the short footnotes. Hopefully, that addresses all the comments of the source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24 – Just a courtesy ping the previous concerns were resolved. Is the source review passed? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely, splendid work. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• "Sibelius cycle" no idea why "cycle" has to be in italics here.

 Done Removed. Silence of Järvenpää (talk)

• Also no really good reason to bold the symphonies.

 Done Removed. Silence of Järvenpää (talk)

• "in the U.S.)." I would say United States to avoid that awkward full stop/parenthesis/full stop construction.

 Done 3/3 U.S. changed to United States. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• 43^rd : The ordinal suffix (e.g., th) is not superscripted.

 Done Removed 1/1 instances found. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Our article calls him Neeme Järvi.

 Doing... Not sure what you mean here. I see Neeme in the article referenced as Neeme. Is it perhaps that you saw Paavo Järvi, his son, and thought it was an error? Clarification welcome! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This appears to have been Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "gesture... " see MOS:ELLIPSIS, non-breaking space before the ellipsis in this case. Check all other instances.

 Done 5/5 instances changed. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• "runtime [m]" no spaces between headings and footnotes.

 Done Removed Silence of Järvenpää (talk)

• "Select incomplete Sibelius cycles:" does that mean that it's an {{incomplete list}}?
• Why two runtimes (32:28, 30:46)?
  • @Silence of Järvenpää – can you please clarify the above two points. I have taken care of rest all of the issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • It appears to me (per the source) that Karajan did two different recordings of Symphony 5, thats why 2 runtimes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 4 pp.
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• In fact, check all multiple page sources are using pp. not p.
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Sibelius: Symphonies Nos. 1-7 " should be en-dash.
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• " OCLC ????" is there any point to this?
  • No, removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A prodigious piece of work. Just a few points above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to the other comments? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man – The nominator is not very active on Wikipedia since last month, so I have addressed all your remaining comments, except one about {{incomplete list}}, which I'm not sure. Do you have any further comments? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man – Just a courtesy ping for any follow-ups. The nominator has no edits since late August. I have made almost all the remaining changes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed some minor table formatting issues, and addressed the "incomplete list" comment- the section has a form inclusion criteria (a conductor who recorded 3+ parts with the same orchestra (but not all 7)), but it was buried in a note instead of in the text. I've made it more prominent. With that, I think we're good to promote. --PresN 14:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC) [21].

---

List of Samuel L. Jackson performances

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm back at it with another filmography. This time it's Samuel L. Jackson, one of my favorite actors and the highest grossing live-action actor of all time. ~ HAL333 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Ignored" spelt incorrectly in note 1
• "Tarantino-directed Pulp Fiction.[4] For Pulp Fiction" => "Tarantino-directed Pulp Fiction.[4] For the latter film" (to avoid repetition of the title)
• "collaborated with Tarantino again in Django Unchained" =>"collaborated with Tarantino again on Django Unchained"
• "He is scheduled to receive a Academy Honorary Award" => "He is scheduled to receive an Academy Honorary Award"
• There are two credits for him playing Agent Augustus Gibbons but one just for Augustus Gibbons - this might be correct (the character might not be an agent in one film) but I jus thought I'd check.....

• Good catch. ~ HAL333 22:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why only the TV table is not sortable?
• A Soldier's Play sorts incorrectly
• Think that's all I've got. Great work :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• All done. Appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 22:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Forbes.com/sites is being flagged by the UPSD tool as iffy (it depends on the particular page), and Express is flagged as "generally unreliable".
• "and he has reprised the role in later entries": "reprise" shows up a lot in this paragraph; I think this is probably the bit that I'd cut back on to avoid repetition. Maybe you can delete it, or replace it with "and other films" or something. Otherwise:
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I see Chris has checked the sorting. I've sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. Except as above, the article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any other problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable. I'm a little surprised that there's no navbox (but I see that's standard in filmography lists) and so few categories at the end, but you'd know better than I do what's expected.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• All addressed. ~ HAL333 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Kavyansh.Singh

Hi @HAL333 – This is not a source review, but just few comments

• Add "RogerEbert.com" as work in Ref#59.
• I would suggest adding WP links to all the websites/media sites, etc in the citations. Currently, some are linked (like The New York Times in Ref#99), while others are not.
  • I ended up unlinking everything. ~ HAL333 16:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That works. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Capitalize l in "The los Angeles Times" (Ref#154)
• Replace "New York Times" with "The New York Times" in Ref#169
• Capitalize W and P in "The washington post" (Ref#183)
• There is a Reference named "Archived Copy". (Ref#188) Reformat it.

Comment on images – Three of the four images were originally posted in Flickr, and are licenced properly. The remaining image was original work of a user, which was confirmed by an OTRS ticket. I see no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh All addressed. ~ HAL333 16:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

HAL333 – Thanks for addressing everything. I see no other major issue with the table, and I feel I can support this list for promotion as a Featured list. It would be a great help if you could review any of my current 2 FLC's. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments for Birdienest81

• Nothing really much. However, I would move non-periodical sources such as Rotten Tomatoes, Turner Classic Movies, MeTV, PBS, and NPR to the publisher or agency field in the citation template so that it is not italicized. Otherwise, I support this list for featured list promotion.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. ~ HAL333 21:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• "A prolific actor, Jackson's films have collectively grossed" this is a little repetitive and confusing: (a) you don't need to repeat his name (b) we already know he's an actor (c) you said previously he was also a producer but this "Jackson's films" is that just as an actor (per the sentence) or including his work as a producer?
• "with a small part" minor role?
  • To avoid repetition, I prefer "small part". ~ HAL333 21:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• "His other early film appearances were minor roles in films such as " -> "He also made brief appearances in films such as...
• "and, in 1994, he starred" the following year (to mix up the in XXXX repeat)
• "received a Golden Globe nomination" another
• "Two years later, he starred in the science fiction horror film Deep Blue Sea.[11]" is this noted for any particular reason?
  • It supports that the genre is "science fiction horror". ~ HAL333 21:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Also in 2000, he " -> The same year
• Television roles don't appear to be covered at all in the lead?
  • Although I cover The Sunset Limited, Jackson's television performanes are all very bried and not much of note. Secret Invasion may change that as he may be the main character. ~ HAL333 21:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• "One episode" v "1 episode" be consistent.
• "Denotes television series that have not yet been released" there are none.
  • Corrected. ~ HAL333 21:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The Public Theatre" Theater apparently.
• "The Mountaintop" doesn't need piping.
• Year -> Year(s).
• Year range MOS now says we should include full years on either side of the en-dash.

• Although that's what Mr. Jackson would call a "stupid-ass decision", I guess I'll roll with it. Done. ~ HAL333 22:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• What does "Also likeness" mean?
  • Removed. ~ HAL333 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Samuel Jackson Announcer" he just announces himself? What does that mean?
  • Clarified (hopefully) in note column. ~ HAL333 21:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• NYT sources require a subscription.
• Ref 5, isn't Variety a work?
• Refs 179, 182, etc date format inconsistent. Check all.
• Ref 157 SHOUTING.
• Ref 205, Evening Standard is linked (no others appear to be linked) and not in italics.

That'll do for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

HAL333 are you going to address the remaining issues? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I apologize. Been extremely busy lately. Will try to knock these out tonight! ~ HAL333 20:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

All done now - sorry for the tardiness. ~ HAL333 21:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

• Version reviewed – 1

Formatting

• Ref#22 – "1 November 1999" - inconsistent with the date style.
• Ref#198 – "1 November 1999" - inconsistent with the date style.
• Various references have "The Los Angeles Times", but the newspaper and the Wikipedia article calls it just "Los Angeles Times", without 'The' ... Better to follow that way.
• Ref#152 – "Hollywood Reporter" should be written as "The Hollywood Reporter" to be consistent with rest of the article.
• Rest fine. I had included some formatting issued in my previous comments here, which were addressed.

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• Did a few spot-checks, everything looks good.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• All done. Sorry for the delay - been very busy irl. ~ HAL333 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• No issues. Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC) [22].

---

List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances)

Nominator(s): KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC) and ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

After making the list up to date and fixing some of the suggestions made on the previous FLC, I am nominating this for featured list status. It is very similar to the other Gillingham player lists and fits all of the FLC criteria. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comment The rubric at the top of the FLC page says "Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination". I show as having done 75% of the edits (by count) and added 98% of the text, so would have appreciated being consulted. If I had been, I'd have cautioned that there are over 120 red links, which people might take issue with per criterion 5a which requires "a minimal proportion of items [to be] redlinked"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I am also very surprised by the high amount of redlinks (despite all of them passing WP:NFOOTY criteria). I believe this is only a minor issue which could be ignored seeing how flawlessly the list meets the other criteria, but we can work together to make some quick stubs for the redlinks (for example: Michael Freiter) using Soccerbase, Gillingham Scrapbook, and other sources. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Column headers need colscopes, e.g. "!Name!!Nationality!!..." should be "!scope=col| Name (line break) !scope=col| Nationality", etc., like in your Key table. Colscopes, along with the rowscopes that are already there, allow screen reader software to accurately read out what column/row a bit of cell text is in. --PresN 20:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*"Luke Freeman" image, could you crop it so we don't have so much "green" space? English football league system is overlinked. As is The Football League. And substitute. Any reason that Gillingham is piped to Gillingham, Medway which is a redirect? "throughout its history" entire? "voted out" do we have an article about re-election etc? "1937–38 season" put season inside the pipe. "playing a relatively small number of" playing relatively few games "youngest player ever to play for any club in the FA Cup" but the source says "The youngest player to appear in any round of the FA Cup (including qualifying rounds) is Andy Awford" I imagine Freeman's record applies to First Round proper onwards... "1989–90 season" season in pipe again. "made a small number of appearances" -> "made few appearances" "goal in the Football League." be consistent with the The. " 2007–08 season" season in pipe. "but went on to enjoy more success as a manager." not referenced. "who had played for Scotland before the Second World War, played " repetitive, perhaps "represented" first time? Ref 11, en-dash. Some publishers/via are linked, most are not, what's the approach? Ref 1 has Kent County Libraries but not ref 2 or 3? I would advocate harvard referencing for the books which are used more than once, so you don't repeat all the information time and time again. Do you need the super-cat Category:Gillingham F.C. when you have the more refined Category:Gillingham F.C. players? That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: - all done. You didn't mention the amount of redlinks. Can I confirm that that isn't an issue? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  Support my issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from WA8MTWAYC

• "playing in EFL League One ... the 2021–22 season" I think a ref needs to be added here (e.g. The Football Club History Database).
• "a name which was retained until 1912" ==> They were renamed as Gillingham F.C. in 1912?
• In the lede: I don't think it would hurt if it was stated in which year Luke Freeman made his debut and when Roeder was player-manager.
• The redlinks aren't a problem for me either.
• That's all I could find. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@WA8MTWAYC: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments and source review from Kavyansh.Singh

• Not sure why few columns have a reference, while rest don't have.
  • There's a general reference at the top of the column - the specific refs on rows are for players not covered by the general ref (because it's from 2003). I'm not repeating the same ref on 600 rows or however many it is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Sounds completely reasonable not to repeat it 600 times. I didn't count, but its way above 600. Some 750-800 rows. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • 600 was just a guess :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Mitchell 2013" doesn't point to any source. It should be {{sfn|Mitchell|Reeves|Tyler|2013|p/pp=??}}
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Rest, I have no issues with those redlinks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: - see above :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that is all I could find. Check for consistency in location of publication in Bibliography section. Rest, consider a support from me; as well as pass for source review. Formatting and reliability seems fine, as List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances), a FL uses same sources. Any comments here would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, the ref to the Mitchell et al book doesn't give a location because in the front it lists something like six different locations for the publishing house rather than just one (might be five, I haven't got it in front of me right now, but it's definitely quite a few). This came up in a different FLC/FAC and it was agreed that it would look stupid to list them all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC) [23].

---

List of commanders of the British 2nd Division

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the final list to supplement the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article. This list contains all 60+ officers who commanded the 2nd Division over its 200-year history. It has previously been assessed and passed as an A-Class list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I added an sronly template to the table caption, since it repeats the section heading.

  Appreciated!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• You've got some work to do on the sort order of the first and third columns. {{sortname}} should fix the problems in the third column. You might think sorting order wouldn't be important in the first column ... after all, you've created the table with the proper sort order in the first column to start with ... but one nice thing about a sortable table is that you can sort on two columns if you want to, and if you try that with this table, it won't work. Fortunately, the {{dts}} template will make your job pretty easy.

  I have went in and added the name template, and I *think* I added the correct template for the dates. Hopefully, that is these two points addressed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. For some areas where I haven't kept up with prose standards, I typically wait for other people to do prose reviews, then sign off on their reviews (or not). In this case, I know you want to nominate another list soon, so I'll go ahead and get a support in before the prose review is done ... prose reviews tend to be easy to come by, especially for Milhist articles. The table coding seems fine. I 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 article is well-sourced to reliable sources. The only refs flagged by the UPSD tool are to the War Office, and there's no problem there. Otherwise, the tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine, but it needs alt text (a few words would be fine).

  Alt text has been addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments and support. I have attempted to address your concerns above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The dates do not sort correctly in the first column (currently sorting on that column results in the following sequence: 1 April 1902 > 1 December 1967 > 1 February 1910 etc, which clearly isn't right)
• The names do not sort correctly in the third column (should sort based on surname) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have just updated the date template, and I think it is working. Based off your edit timestamp, I think you looked at the list a minute or so before I updated with the name templates. So, I think these are addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Chris, I just now checked the date sorting, it's fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Awesome :-) I'll give the article another look later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RunningTiger123

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

* Sorting was the main issue I noticed earlier, but those issues seem to have been resolved – nice job there! "by Everard Wyrall; who compiled" – change semicolon to comma UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Years should be hidden for "Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855)" UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "an critical role" → "a critical role" UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC) It would probably help to link "Brigadier" in addition to "Brigadier-General" in the rank column – I know they're the same position, but it may not be obvious to unfamiliar readers looking for a wikilink. (Alternatively, you could link "Brigadier-General" to Brigadier-general (United Kingdom), which is a redirect to a section of the currently linked page, and used Brigadier (United Kingdom) for "Brigadier".) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC) I tweaked the existing link, per your suggestion, and added in the direct link for brigadier (UK) as well. Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address all the points you brought up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• The sole image in the list (File:Roland Hill 1819.jpg) is freely licenced. It requires ALT text. No major issues with the licencing, so pass for the image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Alt text was added yesterday, I think? - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "from 1815 through 1818" - we don't say "from [date] through [date]" in British English. Should be "from 1815 to 1818"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "before being disbanded in 2012 and ending" => "before being disbanded in 2012, ending"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "when the War of the Seventh Coalition broke-out" => "when the War of the Seventh Coalition broke out"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and included a pivotal role" => "and played a pivotal role"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Everard Wyrall; who compiled" => "Everard Wyrall, who compiled"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The division was formed in for the first time" => "The division was formed for the first time"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note against first Pennefather note isn't a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
• Same with Lyttleton note
• Conversely, Monro and Irwin notes are full sentences so need one
• Grover note needs a full stop
• Stirling and Kitson notes need full stops
• Mackay note should not have a full stop

  I have gone in and amended the above points, as suggested.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• The five unknown GOCs have ranks listed, even though their identities are unknown. Do the sources confirm these ranks?

  No. Technically, someone from the next rank down (as seen via the sourced WWI and WWII sections) took over temporary command until a permanent appointment was made. The cited sources really only identify the gap: X finished his appointment on X date, and then X took over on X date; they do not list the interim temporary CO. I supposed the ranks could be removed? I was hesitant to leave a gap (so to speak), if the article was compared to the Gazette.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I found. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your review and commentsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• "ending the division's 203-year history" well, a broken history, which spanned 203 years but with like 75 years of those while it was disbanded.

  Addressed a few points down, I would imagine.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The commander, the general..." isn't this sentence true of pretty much every military unit in history?

  Probably. However, it was asked elsewhere to point out what the GOC actually does.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and played a pivotal role " I would suggest one more sentence to cover why it was pivotal wouldn't go amiss here.

  I have added in a couple of extra lines to say what it wasEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Something I've seen recently, the opening sentences of the first para of the lead seem to be a lead for the lead! You don't need all those disband/reform in the opening sentences because you do it with more detail in the next two paras, and by then it feels repetitive.

  I have reworded the first para, per your suggestion. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• On my screen, the infobox just creeps into the "General officer commanding" section and needlessly squashes the table substantially.

  I have checked on my phone and laptop, and I am not seeing this. Any suggestions on how to resolve this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• In sortable tables, linked items are linked every time because after a re-sort, there's no knowing if the linked item appears first.

  Links added for ranksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• 23 Jan 1855 is then followed by 1855 which is then followed by March 1855. Sorting then by "Appointment date" re-organises those. Get it in the default order to start with.

  In this case, it is already in the default order. On 23 January 1855, Pennefather was appointed as GOC. At some point later, he was sick and someone held temporary command. At some point in early March, based off the wording in the Gazette, he resumed command. I suppose the these two entries could be removed, and a note added to the initial one to state that he left command of the division on a temporary basis due to being sick? The Gazette does not state who took command in his absence, but does not his 'return to command'.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  To clarify, what TRM means is that if you click on the sort icon for that first column, the row for the acting commander after Pennefather's 23 January stint jumps above the 23 January row. You need to use a hidden sort key with a date anywhere between 23 January and March to ensure that that row always stays below the 23 January row. Same for any other row that shows only a year, not a specific date. Hope that makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Probably worth having a "number" column as you note that 63 individuals have held the position in the lead.
• Ah, if this table includes "acting" appointments, they should be identified.

  All acting appointments are identified as such in the note section. Was you suggesting something else? I feel like the acting commanders would make a bit of a mess of the GOC count, as I do not believe I included them in the 63 count. There also GOCs that had their tenure broken-up by acting commanders due to sickness etc. I see that making a number column look a little messy maybe? Thoughts?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 23 needs an en-dash, not a spaced hyphen.

  ReplacedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That's enough for a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments and your review. I have acted on most, and left some comments above to get additional feedback before moving forward.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  No problem. I think a number column would still be useful, and you could identify the "acting" commanders through a symbol and a coloured cell. It may be too much work, so I understand if you don't fancy doing it. Re: the default order, what I meant was if I sort by date, which I assume the initial order of the table to be, it changes, so my point was that the default chronological order isn't correct per the behaviour of the table. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Re numbers and acting, I have done a mini mock-up here. Would this work to address both points?

  As for the default order, I am not sure what change I can make to the article. It is manually wrote out to be in chronological order. Are these changes that I can make, to help the filtering behavior or the sortable table?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  @EnigmaMcmxc: - I've fixed the 1855 row with this edit. Just replicate that for any other row which doesn't show a full DMY date, using an appropriate "fake" date. Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have gone through and added in fake dates as needed, so that should address the sorting issue? I have also added in an initial column that provides a number order/sorts between those who are acting. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look strong throughout. The link-checker tool flagged one of the links in the reference section as suspicious in terms of whether it works (the Defense Basing Review one), but I clicked on it and it came up just fine. I'd say the source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC) [24].

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2014

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's the latest of my number-one country song lists. If 2015 (currently nominated with multiple supports) and this one are both promoted, that will create an unbroken run from 1959 to 2020. This year, it was mostly about bro-country, so if you liked songs about trucks and pretty girls, this was a good year for you to listen to country music radio :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• All of the images are either from Flickr, or uploaded by the commons user under a suitable licence. The licence of all Flickr images are verified. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*Link chart. "14 weeks atop the chart and he spent a further six ... 20 " 14/6/20 or fourteen/six/twenty per MOSNUM. "had the highest number of" had the most "Former contestant on TV's The Voice" The Voice is piped to a redirect and you've previously noted which season these individuals have participated in the show. " "Where It's At" gave Dustin Lynch his first appearance at number one.[8]" feels a bit standalone, nothing more to say about this? Maddie and Tae had previously seen an EP of theirs at number one in the Top Heatseekers chart, so to say "Maddie & Tae achieved their first number one when..." might be a tiny bit misleading. Ref 1 NYT is sub-only. That's all I have, a typically good piece of work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: - all done, I think. Top Heatseekers chart was a new one on me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support my concerns well dealt with, looks good to me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Other reviews

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Formatting

• Standardized throughout

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• Looks good. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ojorojo – Another well-done list; I don't see any issues here. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1957

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, we're nearly there now you will be pleased to hear - with 74 of these number-one country songs lists promoted to FL and one nearly there, here's the penultimate one to be nominated (until this year ends and I need to work on the one for 2021.....). In this year, acts reaching number one included such legends as the Everly Brothers and Elvis - back in 1957, Billboard considered the early rock and roll/rockabilly sound to be a hybrid of country music and rhythm and blues, and so classics like "Jailhouse Rock" were big hits on both the country and R&B charts. Anyway, as ever I look forward to your feedback, which will be acted on as quickly as humanly possible..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

• Version reviewed — 1

Formatting

• Ref#1 – format the ISBN number using this tool.
• In fact, do the same for all ISBN numbers.
• Joel Whitburn is linked in Ref#2 and 7, but not in Ref#1, 3 ,and 6
• Is the John Bush of Ref#4 this John Bush? If so, you might want to link it.
• Same goes with Stephen L. Betts
• Ref#9 lacks author (Richard Buskin), and date (June 2011)
• Ref#12 to Ref#62 – Everything seems fine ...

Reliability

• No issues. Most of the citations are from Billboard, appropriate for these type of lists.

Verifiability

• Suggesting to archive all sources; whenever you can ....

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: - actioned. I can find no evidence that Stephen Betts is the same person as the person who writes for AllMusic, so I have not linked him. Same with John Bush -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Fine then. Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

As always, nice work. You should be able to get one of these past me with zero comments by now but .......

• "charts would merge" why passive voice?
• "form a multimetric chart" whaaaaat?
• "At the start of the year" as we've talked about other years, maybe "At the start of 1957...
• "topped all three charts and was in the top" topped/top
• "country number ones during the year; he reached number one" repetitive.
• Here's a curious one. You have a "jockeys" chart and I assume that's what's meant by "airplay-based listing" but for non-experts, there's no connection between what a "jockeys" chart is and the fact they are DJs putting songs on rotation...
• "topped the pop singles charts" which charts were those?
• "than 20 number ones to his name" to his name isn't needed.
• "and returned to the top spot" returned to number one (to avoid three "top" in that sentence).
• "Marty Robbins had the final number one on the juke box chart." with??
• Ref 2, en-dash in year range.

That's it. Please make sure to ping me when you get round to the topic nomination! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - all of the above done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support happy with my comments being addressed. And thanks for the table inspiration. EXACTLY what I was looking for! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Other reviews

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• A table caption is required, with or without an sronly template, so I added one.
• I say below that UPSD isn't picking up any problems, and that's true, nothing that I consider a problem ... but for the first time that I can recall, it's labeling Billboard in yellow (meaning "some bad, some good, it depends").
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine; no edits from me. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but see above). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dank: - thanks once again for taking the time to review one of my lists! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're doing most of the work :) Is this going to be a featured topic? - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dank: I hope so! See User:ChrisTheDude/sandbox..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

Another well-done list, but I have a couple of questions:

• I haven't used {{Ref label}} (I use {{efn}} instead), but shouldn't a header, such as "Notes", appear before the list of notes?
• "Ref." in the last table column often uses Ref., but not here. Oversight or ?

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: - both amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

That answers my concerns. Support —Ojorojo (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC) [26].

---

United States presidential elections in Hawaii

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which Hawaii participated, with votes and percentage. I intend to make similar changes to all the lists within this series. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. With one of the list (United States presidential elections in Washington, D.C.) currently a FLC, with multiple comprehensive reviews, all resolved, I nominate this too. Check this page for progress. Thanks! (47 states more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

*"every presidential elections, except for 1972 and 1984 presidential elections" presidential elections/presidential elections repetitive. Reworded – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "by Richard Nixon and" no need for "Richard". Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "received the highest percentage of vote share (14.22%)[8] ever received" received/received repetitive. Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "a faithless Democratic elector voted" what is this? A footnote may help our readers understand what this is. Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) You could include in the lead the largest margin of victory, it looks like you've covered the narrowest, with JFK. Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "[12][4][13]" order. Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) The tables aren't sortable so there's no need to overlink. Well, the tables are sortable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Duh, stupid me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Give % to the same degree of precision, e.g. 2 decimal places throughout. Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC) @The Rambling Man – Addressed all. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "Hawaii has been won by the Democratic party in every presidential elections" =>"Hawaii has been won by the Democratic party in every presidential election"
• Think that's all I've got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude – Done. Thanks for taking a look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ExcellentWheatFarmer

• "which remains the largest margin of victory in the state" -> "which remains the largest ever margin of victory in the state's history."
• Otherwise, this looks good! – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @ExcellentWheatFarmer – Nice to see you here. I have made the change. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RunningTiger123

• "the Democratic party" → "the Democratic Party"
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "voted Bernie Sanders" → "voted for Bernie Sanders" (two occurrences)
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Various polls have ranked Hawaii..." – but you only cite one poll, so you need more sources.
  • changed to "Gallup Poll has ranked..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Inconsistent use of spacing after ‡ – some items have a space between party affiliation and the symbol, while others don't. Pick one or the other (I personally prefer the first option).
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Gallup Polls" should be capitalized in source 13
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 – Done all. Thanks for taking a look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – good to see more progress on these lists! RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – As with the other list in this series that I gave a source check to, the reliability and formatting look fine throughout and there are no dead links indicated by the link-checker tool. This review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC) [27].

---

List of presidents of Princeton University

Nominator(s): PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to preface this, this is my first featured list nomination, so I apologize ahead of time for any issues. Anyway, I've been working on this article for the past few days, and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. It covers relevant information on the office of the president for Princeton University as well as lists all presidents and acting presidents that have served the office. I'll be pleased to address any and all feedback. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Rewrite the lead sentence to start with Princeton University is a... Fixed ex officio member should be one link: ex officio member Fixed No reason to capitalize "The" in The Trustees of Princeton University Fixed clergymen should be singular Fixed Some sort of key is needed to explain what italicized names mean Switched the table numbering to include the acting presidents and removed the italics and hyphen that was previously used. Other FL for university presidents do that, so I'll just standardize with them. I also put "Served as acting president" in their notes with a citation from the book in the Works Cited section. I'd suggest using Template:Abbr for the last column (i.e. Ref.) so it isn't unnecessarily wide (this will benefit mobile devices in particular) Used template refh that does the same thing. Presidents should sort by last name Fixed. As a beginner to tables, that was tricky to solve. Absolute image sizes are discouraged – instead, try to scale them relative to thumb and upright (see Help:Pictures#Thumbnail sizes) My bad, I modeled the image practice off a recent FL for university presidents, and they had used absolute sizing. I've altered it to use a frameless image type (as captions aren't really needed in this case) with an upright factor. Hope that works for you. Sources from The New York Times should be tagged as url-access=limited Fixed For source 49, the title should be in title case instead of all uppercase Fixed; I previously corrected the other NYT articles that had all uppercase, but must've missed that one. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: I believe I have resolved all of your requested edits; feel free to check the page and my comments. If you have any other concerns or issues, I'm more than willing to address them. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Support – nice work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Sdkb

• For Jacob Green and John Blair, they died long enough ago that I'd expect any images of them to be in the public domain. Do any exist? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You would be correct, but I have scoured the internet and can not find any pictures of either of them. The Princeton University Art Museum typically has portraits of every president (and acting presidents) but there is none for either. The only picture I've found for either is this this one of Green, but I believe it is an illustration for the book (published 1993), so definitely still copyrighted.

    That's alright; thanks for making the effort to search. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Princeton University Press is linked in one ref but not another; MOS:REPEATLINK doesn't apply within refs, so I'd link it in both. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed; good catch.
• Shouldn't Princeton University be linked right at the start of the first sentence? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed. When I revised the lead sentence, I must've forgot to wikilink the institution again.
• I'm on the fence about whether or not adding {{Infobox official post}} would be an improvement or not, so I'll leave it to your discretion. It has some parameters for details you may want to add anyways, such as the president's salary (available on Princeton's 990 form). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll add the salary information into the lead, but I think I'll hold off from the Infobox. I considered it, but I feel like it provides little additional information that warrants its inclusion.

    Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• three presidents who have resigned Don't most presidents resign at the end of their tenure (the only alternatives being dying or being impeached)? I'm guessing that this is saying something more specific, perhaps resigned in the middle of their term, but if so it's ill-defined. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I suppose that every president does resign. The reason I have that statistic is that is what Leitch (1978) and the university say: only three have. I believe the reasoning follows more along the lines of the three that resigned were having issues with the trustees (two were pressured to leave; one was having disagreements) while the others simply did not want to serve the office anymore or had other ambitions (looking at Woodrow Wilson over here). If you want, I'll remove it since it is ambiguous in a way.

    It needs to be either clarified or removed. If the sources don't offer any clarification, removing it is alright. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

    Removed. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Many of Princeton's deceased presidents are buried Do we have a specific number? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The citation for NJ.com on that sentence says 12 out of 16 deceased presidents are buried there. That source came out in 2014 and president Bowen died in 2016. A news release from Princeton University says that he was buried there. That would make 13 out of 17, so I guess I could also cite the news release and provide that number if you want.

    I think that would be good. We should avoid vagueness in the lead when it's possible to do concisely, WP:ABOUTSELF makes the reference fine, and WP:CALC covers the basic addition. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

    Added and clarified. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Father of Ashbel Green, 8th president of the university Ashbel Green shouldn't be listed right next to a big ten, then. Whatever numbering system we decide on, it needs to be self-consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Good point. I'll simply put a hyphen for the acting presidents, so that way the numbering system doesn't have to be revamped on this page and every other page that mentions a Princeton president.

    Looks good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• A similar issue with the fact that Eisgruber is called the 20th in the lead and the 25th in the list. The footnote explains what's going on, but we still need to be consistent—either go with the university's official numbering or go with our own. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • See above.
• The longest serving president was James Carnahan at 31 years, and the shortest was Jonathan Edwards at five weeks There's a grammar issue here, as "at 31 years" refers to Carnahan's tenure, not Carnahan himself. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reworded.
• The wikilinking in the lead could probably be improved. Currently, we link the common terms corporation and alumni but not the less common term charter. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Improved wikilinking (hopefully).
• Has the university ever had a non-white president? Noting the racial demographics along with the gender demographics would seem appropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You see, uh, the answer is no. Shirley Tilghman, for example, was the first woman president, and only the second woman president ever of the Ivy League. Change comes a bit slow.

    Could we mention that fact in the same sentence as Tilghman, e.g. All of Princeton's presidents have been white and all besides Shirley Tilghman have been male.? Race and gender are frequently brought up together, and it'd introduce neutrality concerns to highlight only the one where the university has started to diversify. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

    Added the fact that there has not been any non-white presidents. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Died while in office in Philadelphia seeking medical treatment Do we know anything more specific about what disease he had? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I've checked all my main sources I go to for Princeton history, and it doesn't appear that anyone knows. He was also a fairly inconsequential president so not much is every really said on him. I've done other searching but cannot find anything. Once I eventually work on his page, I'll update this list if I do find out.

    Sounds fine. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Founding Father of the United States of America; Signer of the Declaration of Independence In the sense you're using Founding Father here, it's synonymous with signer of Declaration of Independence; to avoid redundancy, we should choose only one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair point. I'll remove Founding Father, as he is more associated with signing the Declaration of Independence.

    Looks good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• ongoing issues with the institution This is rather vague; would there be any way to concisely say what the issues were, or would that require going into undue detail? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Basically, Smith fired 125 students over a mini riot that occurred in 1807, which had made both students and trustees not fond of him. He was also in the process of educational reforms (causing less students to go into ministry), which others were dissatisfied with. Furthermore, enrollment was dropping and faculty was declining. All combined, the trustees weren't happy and told him to resign, or they'll replace him; he resigned. Could I summarize that -- maybe, but the sentence would be quite long. On the Princeton University page, where I rewrote the history section, I dedicated two complex sentences to Smith, so it might fall into undue if I attempt to do that here.

    Fine to just stick with what we have, then. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Resigned after pressure from university trustees Again, it'd be helpful to have a little bit of specificity if it's possible to provide it concisely. Especially given that we're citing a history from Princeton, we should be wary of any attempts to sugarcoat some of the nastier battles in history by papering them over with generalities. I'm not sure if that's something happening here, but something to be on the lookout for. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • His was mainly due to dissatisfaction with his administration style (it was quite lackluster). I'll add that in.

    "dissatisfaction with his administration style" still reads as pretty nonspecific to me, but good enough I guess. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

    Added "lackluster" as a descriptor. It might still sound non-specific, but genuinely, he was removed because the board of trustees wanted someone more effective. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, I would suggest changing 28th President of the United States to 28th President of the United States (including the "28th" in the link to avoid any eggs). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed, another good catch.
• There's a lot of capitalizing titles, such as 10th President of the University of Michigan, which would work equally well as 10th president of the University of Michigan, since "president of the University of Michigan" is both a description and a title. I don't have any issue if you want to leave it this way, as the way you've done it is both valid and consistent, but just wanted to note it. Institutions almost always prefer to capitalize, as it makes them seem more important, so it's sometimes something to watch for neutrality. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair point about neutrality, but since I'm using it more as a title, I'll keep it capitalized.

    Sounds fine. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• For ref 13, there's some trickiness between |website= and |publisher=, as I'm not sure of the exact relationship between NJ.com and The Times, but however we resolve it, The Times needs to be italicized as it's a newspaper. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• I assume ref 36 ought to have Hampden-Sydney College as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• For ref 42, Chi Phi Fraternity is probably better as the publisher, not the website, and it can be wikilinked. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was undecided, but I'll go with your input.
• For ref 44, if we're citing the White House as a website rather than a publisher, the wikilink would actually be whitehouse.gov. Again, probably better to just list the publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I wasn't aware that whitehouse.gov was a Wikipedia page. I'll switch The White House to publisher, though.

Overall, this list looks in quite good shape (especially considering it's your first FL nom). The lack of information about academic specialties is probably the biggest issue. I haven't done a full source review, but if my concerns above are adequately addressed, I will be happy to support. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I've resolved all your requested edits and left responses for you to decide on for two other comments you made (Presidents buried and how many have resigned). Feel free to answer those and have a look over the page again. If you have any other suggestions, I'm more than willing to address them. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Implemented and I believe resolved the last couple response comments you had. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to let me know. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I made a grammar tweak to your latest edit, and with that my concerns are addressed. Nice work on this! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oops, apologies to come back here with more, but I just realized that the comment I was going to make about academic specialties I must've forgotten to make anywhere outside my head except my conclusion and then forgotten about. That comment is that it'd be nice to have more information about the academic specialties of the presidents. For instance, Tilghman is a molecular biologist in addition to being an academic administrator, and most of the others are similar. I think it'd improve the list to add mentions of those things if you'd be willing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Little late to responding to this, but I thought about adding their specialties, but the issue is that besides Tilghman, the rest are basically political scientists, economists, or theologians. Tilghman is probably the most interesting academic specialty out of them all. I'll consider adding them for later, but I'll do that after researching more thoroughly into each president if that sounds reasonable. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, sounds fine. I'll leave it up to you, but I'd encourage it—the fact that those disciplines are so well-represented is an interesting factoid! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Surely the wikilink to Research university should be placed on both words, not just the first?
  • Fixed
• Three consecutive sentences start with "The president" - could do with varying that a bit
  • Reworded the sentence in the middle of the three consecutive sentences. Feel free to check it again to see if its up to par.
• "13 of Princeton's 17 deceased presidents" - don't start a sentence with a number written in digit form
  • Didn't know you weren't suppose to do this. Nice catch. Fixed.
• Per WP:CAPFRAG, any note which does not form a complete sentence should not have a full stop (I realise the linked page relates to captions, but the same principle applies.....)
  • Hmm, I did consider the punctuation of the notes and was initially ambivalent on what to do. I'll remove some of the full stops per your suggestion for one-off statements, but for other notes, I added the full stop to separate the general ideas conveyed in the notes. For instance, Aaron Burr Sr. has positions he served in, family history, and his death—all of which are separated by full stops per my reasoning above. Hope that's fair and makes sense.
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: All comments addressed. Appreciate the feedback and sorry for the latish response; I've been a bit busy with real life. Feel free to look it over again and suggest any additional changes. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Looking now. Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [28]

Formatting

• Assuming you want to link Princeton University in ref 14
  • Fixed
• A bit confused by ref 31, why have both 2012 and then February 9, 2012 later? Or is the latter the specific date for a year encompassing publication?
  • I followed the formatting for citing Congressional Records, and that was the result, but I believe your latter point is the reason for that.

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• Checked a few and it all looked good.
• Hmm, the issues seem far too minor to prevent a Pass for source review, would still recommend taking a look at them though. Aza24 (talk)
  • All issues resolved. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• " a private Ivy League research university" proper sea of blue here, three consecutive links butted up together.
  • You are correct, but there is no easy way to really resolve that. Most university articles for the Wikiproject as well also have that minor sea of blue for their introduction. If you have suggestions on what to do, I'm more than willing to attempt them.

    I concur that there's no reasonable way to avoid a MOS:SEAOFBLUE here. Note that that bullet point begins with when possible, so it's not a hard rule. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the official residence" shouldn't that be linked in the previous sentence, i.e. "the president's official residence..."?
  • Nice catch and fixed.
• I'm pleased to see the use of row and col scopes, but I think the row scope should be the item of interest, i.e. the president name, not the number they served, especially as there are several repeats for the acting president, which you denote with an en-dash.
  • Fixed
• There are several (unexplained) gaps in tenures, e.g. 1 stopped in 1747 but 2 didn't start until 1748, what happened?
  • There's a note for that particular gap in tenure for the page, but that gap came from Burr not becoming the official president till that time although he was essentially serving in that role since Dickinson's death.
  • Oh, and as for other gaps, if there isn't a note for it, there wasn't really an explanation. I could do more digging if you'd like if you want a note for each gap, but I believe most are just from there being no official president or acting president, and the VP was most likely serving in the role.
• Did I miss how these individuals were selected for the role?
  • "...who is selected by the board of trustees by ballot." is in the second sentence. Not sure if there is any more to add to that.
• There's a mix of semi-colons and full stops separating the factoids, what's the strategy?
  • I believe I answered this above, but essentially, semi-colons separate factoids in the same category (e.g., positions that the president held) while the full stop denotes a separate category of factoids.
• Table is sortable so linked items should be linked each time (e.g. "College of New Jersey").
  • Fixed. Did it for the "College of New Jersey" links and the "Log College" link
• Literally nothing to say about McCosh??
  • He was from Scotland, which is something he only shares with Witherspoon. He was a minister of a few non-notable churches there w/o Wikipedia pages and did some philosophy work, but unless I change the general requirements for note selection that I used for the other presidents, there isn't anything that really pertains to him to mention.
• Goheen has an image.
  • Its copyrighted in the US, or I am at least very unsure of its copyrighted status for the US. It's public domain in other parts of the world though.
    • But it's in use at the Goheen article? There's no reason it can't be used here too. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I mean, just because one article has an issue, doesn't mean other (Featured list) articles should replicate that. Why add a copyrighted image (as the image is from the Princeton yearbook if I recall correctly, though I could be wrong)? I initially had the image in the article, but I eventually removed it for that exact reason. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
        • I don't follow at all. If it's at Commons, then it's free to use across Wikipedia. This is a very odd take on copyright. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
          • That simply isn't true, as there are certain images on Commons that have copyrighted status and are only on their for fair use (and can only be used on one page, like the image for the Princeton President Bowen). Others are copyrighted files that are uploaded incorrectly, such as the one for Goheen I presume. Perhaps, you are misconstruing something, because the Goheen image is copyrighted (uploaded after the public domain date) or at least plausibly copyrighted (as I don't necessarily have the time to search the copyright archives) to where I don't feel comfortable using the image. I don't know what else to say. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
            • So its use at the Goheen article is okay but not here? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
              • See below. 05:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
            • By the way, fair use images aren't uploaded to Commons, they're uploaded to Wikipedia. If you need further help with this, drop me a line. In any case, the image we're discussing isn't a fair use image. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
              • The origin of the image is unknown. Considering the only places I've seen that image are from Princeton's various websites, I'd suspect it came from their yearbook or another unique image source of theirs. As a result, that would make it copyrighted. I've already said this, but I'm uncomfortable using the image for this reason as it has not entered the public domain. While the copyright could have expired, I'm unaware of if it has, and I realistically just do not have the time to check the copyright records. Since Wikipedia's Featured List criteria includes no copyrighted material, it would not make sense to include this image out of precautionary reasons, no? Anyway, I've answered all of your other suggestions; I'd just like to know now if this image going to be the reason for a lack of pass. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
              • @The Rambling Man: Pinging to let you know about the above response. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

                Reading this convo, a few pointers. TRM is correct (unless I'm quite mistaken myself) that if a suitably licensed image exists on Commons, then it may be used on Wikipedia, since Commons does not accept fair use images. However, PoliticsIsExciting is correct that the current licensing on Commons, as provided by uploader Marcus334, is questionable. It's tagged with PD-old, but that template says You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States, and it's missing any such tag. It also doesn't say who the author is (other than "Herald"), so there's no way to know if they died 70 years ago. Given this, if someone wanted to really get rid of it, they'd be justified in nominating it for deletion on Commons.

                Lastly, regarding whether it's incumbent on PoliticsIsExciting to determine the copyright status as part of this nomination, personally it's not something I would hold up support over, as figuring out publication history can be very challenging (as I've recently endured myself), but reviewers can choose how strictly they interpret WP:FLCR 5b, and I could see a plausible view that, if a freely licensed image is available, it's incumbent on the nominator to obtain it. The best way to resolve the licensing question would be to reach out to the Mudd Manuscript Library and ask where it was first published. If they are able to give an answer, just check the copyright renewal logs, where it's highly probable there was no renewal, and then use PD-US-not renewed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

                • From my perspective, I see no issue with excluding the photo if the copyright status is questionable. You'd be amazed how many old images on Commons don't hold up well to scrutiny at the FAC level regarding their image licensing, and it's an issue that many contributors must deal with. If this is one of those cases, I wouldn't be in a rush to insert it. Images aren't required by any criteria (though it's nice to include them when possible), and there's always a chance that an image with stronger licensing will be found at a later date. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Tilghman" notes should reflect she's the only female ever.
  • Added
• Ref 15 needs an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • Fixed
• As does ref 27.
  • Fixed
• And ref 33.
  • Fixed
• NYT refs are subscription only.
  • One of the above editors stated to keep it at "limited", and you can use a free account to access NYT articles at least initially.
• " Hampden-Sydney " needs en-dash, not hyphen.
  • The college stylizes the name with a hyphen.
• Category:Princeton University isn't really needed as there are two, more specific cats about Princeton already there.
  • Fixed

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Answered some above. Life is busy, so I'll resolve the other ones either later today or tomorrow. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Answered some more. Slowly working through them. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• @The Rambling Man: Believe I've answered everything. Sorry for the delay, just college takes away a lot of free time. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC) [29].

---

List of Formula One World Championship points scoring systems

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This list is about the various points systems used by the FIA Formula One World Championship over the course of the history of the series to determine who wins the World Drivers' Championship and the World Constructors' Championship each season. I expanded this list two months ago and believe it meets the FL criteria. All comments are welcome MWright96 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Table is mostly good, but is missing rowscopes: the primary cell of each row needs "scope=row", e.g. "| {{F1|1950}}–{{F1|1953}}" should be "!scope=row| {{F1|1950}}–{{F1|1953}}". Rowscopes, in combination with the colscopes you already have in the header row, let screen reader software easily parse tables accurately
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• In general, it's frowned upon to have multiple rows spanned together in a column to the right of one where they aren't spanned together; I can't find any guidance against it in DTAB so it might just be a visual thing. I think that what you have here is fine as it makes sense for the data to span together what you have done, so this is just a note calling it out for awareness. --PresN 13:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "The points scoring system structure" - are both the last two words actually needed? Removed MWright96 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Participants in every season until 1990 were limited to a certain number of highest-placed results" - suggest a rewording of this, as it reads a bit like they were somehow physically prevented from achieving more than a certain number of good results Have reworded the sentence. Thoughts? I've been thinking over this - it's actually quite a hard concept to express. How about "Participants in every season until 1990 could only achieve Drivers' Championship points for their best-placed finishes in a specified maximum number of races".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC) I think that explains that more clearly MWright96 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "No extra points have ever been awarded to drivers for leading the highest number of laps or qualifying on pole position." - seems a bit odd to mention things for which no points have ever been given......... Removed, although this is because some motor racing series such as Formula E grant drivers points for qualifying on pole position and some such as NASCAR awarded drivers points for leading the highest number of laps MWright96 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying. Wouldn't be averse to your putting it back in if you add that context i.e. "Unlike certain other motor racing series, Formula 1 has never awarded....." ? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Readded with extra clarity MWright96 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "48 Grands Prix in succession from the 2018 British Grand Prix and the 2020 Bahrain Grand Prix." - the "and" should be "to" Done MWright96 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Because of the wikilink on "Fastest Lap" in the table, it's actually impossible to bring up the tooltip (as far as I can see, anyway........) Delinked Note d - "Points for shared drivers were shared equally between the drivers" - think the first "drivers" should actually be "drives" Done MWright96 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Note j - "The points in Indianapolis 500 race" => "The points in the Indianapolis 500 race" Done MWright96 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC) That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Have commented to all the points raised above. What else needs addressing? MWright96 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Unlike certain other motor racing series..." feel like you should mention which series. As a follower of F1, I'm a bit stumped about which series you're referring to.
• "there have been 345 out of 770 Drivers' Championship points scorers..." this is a bit of a convoluted way of saying a certain number of drivers have scored points in a race. Would reword it for greater clarity.
• I'm not sure if this is necessary per the criteria, but it would be nice to have an image in the lead. Perhaps of a Ferrari as they are the record points scorers?

Other than these points, it looks good. NapHit (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• • @NapHit: Have addressed each of the points raised above MWright96 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work. NapHit (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*"with the highest number of points attained" with the most points. Done MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Link pole position. Done MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "As of the 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix,, there" spare comma. Removed MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "points.[14][15] in 1,046 FIA" full stop failure. Fixed MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "with 3973. Sebastian Vettel is second" would comma rather than full stop here. Done MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "has the highest Drivers' Championship points total" interestingly this is bound to be slewed by the recent move to 25 points for a win, so is the comparison fair? How would Michael Schumacher had fared if he had been awarded 25 points for each win, for example? Or Senna? Or Prost? The only information I could find online was from an unreliable source MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "drivers got an" -> were awarded... Done MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "points scores, having scored points" repetitive. Reworded MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "he earned points at the" maybe instead of repeating this "earning points" thing, just say where he finished? Added MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "championship point; he was 53 years and 249 days old when he accumulated points" ditto. Done MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I think some coverage is needed in the lead of the points for "sprint qualifying", new for 2021. Added MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) And which "select Grands Prix" is this applicable to? Clarified MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) NYT link requires a subscription. Done MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) "Results". Formula One. Retrieved 10 April 2021." but the list is as of the Hungarian GP in 2021 which was in August... Changed access date MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Have made changes based on the points raised above MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Grapple X

• I could be an idiot (I am an idiot) but I'm thrown by the "Drivers Championship" and "Constructors Championship" columns in the table proper. It seems to tally how many places points were awarded for in a race ("all" presumably meaning "up to 10th place"?) but entries like "9 (5 from first 6, 4 from last 5)" don't seem readily understandable from the text in the lead, which does mention "The format was expanded to include the first six finishers of each event between 1960 and 2002 but with no point for fastest lap" but nothing about the "last 5" (or last 6 or last 7, etc)? I could just be missing something on a hump day morning here but perhaps a note to explain this, just in with the other lettered notes, wouldn't go amiss.
  • Added abbr templates in the table for clarity MWright96 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated.
• Not important or anything, but sometimes historic football seasons are compared with the modern game in an adjusted format (it used to be 2 points for a win, now 3, so comparing a season in, say, the 50s to now is sometimes done by adding those extra points); if there were a reliable source which contextualised Hamilton's record points tally on a similar basis it would be an interesting addition—a nice concrete example of the changing point systems and their impact. This obviously isn't something we should be doing ourselves but if you ever come across reliable sports coverage discussing it, it might be worth circling back to.
  • The only source I found of this was unreliable MWright96 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    • No worries. Would be an interesting addition if it ever comes up reliably but it's not necessary.
• Overall seems well-cited and broadly researched, a good in-depth look. If PresN is happy with the accessibility of rowspans then I am, and the prose looks good to me. I'd be happy to support if my first point is addressed, even if that just means pointing out what I've missed. Good work. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Grapple X: Have replied to each of your points above MWright96 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm happy with this; ready to support this nomination. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

• Version reviewed – 1

Formatting

• Ref#11 – Sky Sports can be linked here. Linking a publication/website multiple times in multiple citations is not considered over-linking. (Per MOS:REFLINK)
• Similar with Ref#15, 16, 21, 22, 25, 29 and others
• Be consistent with whether to include publishing location or not. We just have them in two sources (Switzerland and Endland)

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• Did a few spot-checks. Looks good.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: Believe I have dealt with your concerns satisfactorily MWright96 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC) [30].

---

List of awards and nominations received by James Cameron

Nominator(s): Leo Mercury (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I made sure it meets all of the FL criteria. Leo Mercury (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

The only image File:JamesCameronStarDec09.jpg is appropriated licenced. Pass for Image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RunningTiger123

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

* "breaking the record for being the most awarded individual in this category" – citation needed There isn't really a source for that, you just have to check by yourself the winner for each year. Should I remove that part? As it currently stands, the implied citation is the article for the Saturn Award for Best Director, which fails WP:CIRCULAR. The Saturn Awards' website is a mess, but after some digging, I found this old page from their archives that lists every winner, so that would work as a source. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "It received a record-tie of fourteen nominations" → "It received a record-tying fourteen nominations" Done. "his first feature film in eleven years" – shouldn't it be twelve years (2009−1997)? Done. The categories "The President's Memorial Award" and "The Visionary Award" should sort by "President's Memorial Award" and "Visionary Award", respectively. Done. Move "tied with..." footnotes to the Result column Done. There are several awards on this list that do not specify Cameron as a nominee. The most obvious one is the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama; as far as I know, the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture and Best Television Series are presented to the film/show as a whole and do not specify individual producers for their winners/nominees. I would suggest checking his IMDb awards page; if the award isn't listed there, double-check its source to see if it specifies him as a nominee or was simply presented to the film. The "Motion Picture" awards go to the producers accredited by the Producers Guild of America, as stated here. I still don't think he counts as an official Golden Globes nominee – the HFPA itself doesn't count him, based on their own website – but I won't get hung up over this unless someone else raises the point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC) On a related note, I'd add the IMDb link to an "External links" section at the end, and I'd also check that page to see if there are any notable awards you missed. I had to exclude awards that did not have a Wiki page or without an available reliable source. --Leo Mercury (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC) At the very least, you can probably add the awards from the National Board of Review and the Hollywood Post Alliance. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC) The National Board of Review award was already there, but I've added four other awards that I had missed. --Leo Mercury (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

All changes look good, and I'm happy to support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

In addition to the good comments above, here are some of my thoughts:

• I avoid the use of single-sentence paragraphs, so would advise you do the same here.
  • Done.
• "films like" films including.
  • Done.
• You have three inline citations, are they required in the lead?
  • I think so. I tried to put them where it was necessary.
• "the epic romance blockbuster" sea of blue.
  • Edited.
• $1 billion - non-breaking space between 1 and billion.
  • Done.
• "January 25, 2010 became" comma after 2010.
  • Done.
• "Cameron being nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Film Editing" well weren't those the ones he won?
  • Edited.
• Ref 22 needs an en-dash, not a spaced hyphen.
  • Done. --Leo Mercury (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "holding the title for being one of the most expensive films ever made" - can you really "hold the title" of being one of the most (rather than the most)?
  • Done.
• "It received a record-tie of fourteen nominations" => "It received a record-tying fourteen nominations"
  • Done. --Leo Mercury (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• That's all I got other than what's already been mentioned above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

• Version reviewed — 1

Formatting

• Ref#1 – Add 2010 as the original publishing date
• Ref#3 – url access level = limited
• Ref#14 – translate the title
• Ref#19 – translate the title
• Ref#22 – Replace the dash '-' with an en dash '–'
• Ref#32 – Shouldn't Alle JUPITER AWARD-Gewinner 1978-2014 be inside quotes?
• Ref#47 to Ref#54 – "Los Angeles Times" should be "The Los Angeles Times", check for other instances of the same.
  • Quick note on this one: The newspaper calls itself the Los Angeles Times, not The Los Angeles Times (see the header at latimes.com). Our article on the newspaper also calls it the Los Angeles Times. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    • On that note, this point can be ignored, and its fine to use "Los Angeles Times"..... Thanks @RunningTiger123 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• Overall, no issues.

Verifiability

• Ref#7 – Rather than providing the instruction "(Click on "to view past nominees and winners click here", then click on "1998")", why not just add the direct url?

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Kavyansh.Singh, I've done everything except the last part; IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source. --Leo Mercury (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Leo Mercury – Regarding Ref#7, I just followed the instructions "(Click on "to view past nominees and winners click here", then click on "1998")" and reached that IMDb page. I don't quite get that... You are indirectly asking the reader to go to the IMDb page by following the instructions, but then call it an unreliable source. Doesn't that make the initial "americancinemaeditors.org" source useless? It would be better to replace that citation with another one then. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh right, I forgot about that IMDb redirect. Luckily, I've found a more reliable source. --Leo Mercury (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Pass for source review. Any comments for this nomination would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

• epic romance — possibly link this to romantic epic?
• one of the most expensive films ever made — suggest linking this to list of most expensive films
• Probably just my personal preference but I think this flows better: It was released to critical acclaim and commercial success and holds the title for being the first picture to cross $1 billion at the box office. → Released to critical acclaim and commercial success, it became the first picture to gross $1 billion at the box office.
• the 1998 Academy Awards/the 1998 British Academy Film Awards — WP:SEAOFBLUE?
• "statuettes" seems a bit MOS:JARGONy as somebody unfamiliar with the Oscars would probably not know that the awards are statuettes
• In 2009, Cameron released his first feature film in twelve years, Avatar. → In 2009, Avatar, Cameron's first feature film in twelve years, was released. (Technically, Cameron didn't release it.)
• The film broke several box office records and on January 25, 2010, became the highest-grossing movie in history. → It broke several box office records and on January 25, 2010, became the highest-grossing film in history. (To reduce repetition of "film", potential WP:EGG and mention of "movie" (which I believe is discouraged).)
• Nitpick-y but: nominations, with Cameron being the recipient of three of them → nominations, Cameron the recipient of three of them (more concise)

Ping me when these have been resolved and I'll (probably) be happy to support! Pamzeis (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks @Pamzeis:, I've edited everything. --Leo Mercury (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support — best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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