Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log
Featured list tools: |
This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.
Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2024. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2024.
Full current month log
- 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, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of talpids
We continue through animals with #37 in our perpetual series of mammals lists: moles! Also shrew moles and desmans, collectively making up the family Talpidae. This is the second of four families of the order Eulipotyphla, and is the last easy one at 45 species. These guys are pretty well-known, despite living largely underground, though unfortunately we're missing free images for mostof the Asian ones. As always, this list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Pseud 14
Non-expert prose review.
- It might be worth linking invertebrates, amphibians, crustaceans and fungi.
- That's all I could find really. It's a very informative and well-structured list, as one would expect with your species-related work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- "A member of this family is called an talpid" It should be "a talpid", right?
- Didn't see other problems. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AK
- "member of this...desmans." I feel like this needs a different conjunction.
- "Talpidae is one of four families in the order Eulipotyphla." Kind of repetitive, any way to just add the "one of four" to the first sentence?
- "They are found" Doesn't match the previous sentence, which is talking about the singular Talpidae.
- Why a period in the diet section for American shrew mole?
- There's a couple images on Commons for Urotrichus talpoides; they're of recently dead individuals, but still better than the illustration imo.
- Everything else seems fine, although I'm starting to think that the best use of WMF's funds might just be sending someone to Southeast Asia and having them take photos of anything that moves. AryKun (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AryKun: Not sure what you meant by the first one, but done for the rest. I agree on the images- the worst part is that a bunch of the larger animals do have images on inaturalist, but they're not free-use... --PresN 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The first comment seems to be one of those things I say at 2 am that even I can't make sense of later; everything else is fine, so support on prose. You can just ask someone on iNaturalist if they can change their license from the default CC-BY-NC to CC-BY and they'll usually do it. I've gotten pretty decent photos for several birds that way and from what I've seen, although observers who are professional photographers are a bit more reticent about giving people carte blanche to use their photos commercially, those who are just amateurs or scientists will usually be happy to help. AryKun (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AryKun: Not sure what you meant by the first one, but done for the rest. I agree on the images- the worst part is that a bunch of the larger animals do have images on inaturalist, but they're not free-use... --PresN 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Dylan620
Placeholder for image review; will start looking at this shortly. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review passes, details below:
- All images presently used in the listicle contribute encyclopedic value to it.
- All images are licensed for either PD or CC, with several having been verified via VRT.
- All images have suitable alt text. I would described the mole photographed in File:Hairy-tailed Mole iNaturalist.jpg as more gray than black, but that's an exceedingly minor nitpick and could easily just be how my own eyes are perceiving the color.
- Sources for all images check out. I did go over to Commons to add archived URLs for an image whose source links were dead; see my recent edits there.
- Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]
Snooker world rankings 1984/1985
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latest in the series of professional snooker ranking list nominations. (I've been given permission to open another.) Steve Davis retained top place in the rankings, as he would for a while. Once again, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association changed their mind about the basis of compilation after publishing the list, and revised it. I can provide extracts from relevant sources to reviewers. Thanks in advance for improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead images are usually right at the top, having it halfway down looks a little odd to me
- "open to all members of the WPBSA, carried points" - don't need that comma
- "Merit points were awarded to players who were required to compete in qualifying rounds of ranking tournaments who reached the last 32" => "Merit points were awarded to players who were required to compete in qualifying rounds of ranking tournaments and reached the last 32"
- There's a stray > after the bit about Kirk Stevens
- "the board of the WPBSA voted to award merit points to players who had won qualifying group and then progressed in the main tournament should receive merit as well as ranking points" - this really doesn't make sense, I think some text has maybe been left in that was intended to be removed......?
- "Other Ranking Tournaments" => "Other ranking tournaments" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've acted on all of the comments above. Let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- Please wikilink the first usage of "Lada Classic". This is in the second paragraph.
- Done (I linked it to the article about the tournament series; the later link is to the specific edition. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Add colscopes to the header cells of the points tariff table.
- Looks like PresN has kindly doen this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In the main table, the "1982/83 season" header cell should have scope as colgroup. Same for the "1983/84 season" header cell. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've done this, but let me know if I haven't done it properly. 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks, MPGuy2824. Let me know if anythign else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Passed
- Images have alt text
- Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
- Images are relevant and have succinct captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review : Passed
- Sources are reputable and reliable for the information being cited, and in line with those used in similar featured lists.
- I would link The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, as it appears you link every instance of the work being cited.
- Might be worth linking the first instance of Everton, Clive in the book sources too. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Pseud 14. I have added the links as suggested. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That completes image and source review. Both passed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]
List of World Heritage Sites in Venezuela
Venezuela has three World Heritage Sites and three tentative sites. Standard style. The list for DR Congo is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- == Review ==
- minor: see WP:REPEATCITE for source (3), there's no need to cite consecutive sentences with the same source.
- The column headers "UNESCO data" vs "UNESCO criteria" should be aligned between the two tables
- Earwig[4] looks good for this one
- Sources, prose, and sorting LGTM.
- Support - my notes are very minor and this is great work.
- Brindille1 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
- "using an interwoven bamboo sticks". Remove "an"
- wikilink "Dutch style"
- "In 2005, the site has been listed" to either "Since 2005, the site has been listed" OR "In 2005, the site was listed"
- "because of the damage" to "because of damage"
- wikilink Guipuzcoana to "Guipuzcoan Company of Caracas"
- "and the production has been going on for over 400 years": Remove "the"
- wikilink "1812 earthquake"
- wikilink "the independence process"
- That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks! And thank you for link suggestions, they make the article better. Tone 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan620
Placeholder for image review; will start looking at this in the next couple days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The image review passes; details below:
- Not a dealbreaker, but you may wish to consider replacing File:Chuao 002.JPG with the superior File:Cacao Chuao 1.jpg.
- All images have appropriate alt text.
- All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
- All images are licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
- Adequate sources are provided for all images on their respective description pages.
- Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Architecturally, the older buildings are in Spanish and Mudéjar styles while from the second half of the 17th century, they were influenced by the Dutch style" => "Architecturally, the older buildings are in Spanish and Mudéjar styles while those from the second half of the 17th century onwards were influenced by the Dutch style"
- " the Aula Magna" - I would suggest "the Aula Magna auditorium", as just saying "the Aula Magna" isn't very descriptive for people who don't know what it is
- "the city was hit by an eartquake" - the last word is spelt incorrectly
- That's all I got. Great work once again @Tone:! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]
List of California tornadoes
- Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I moved to California, and was worried about how lacking the information on Wikipedia there was about tornadoes. You might not care about them because they're so common, but certain places get them more than others, and certain areas are more populated than others, so their effects might be disproportionately more impactful than, say, the middle of a corn field (which does happen a lot in California too). How often do they happen? And where? I'm glad you asked, because I wanted to figure out these questions, and more!
Caveat up front. First, it's been a few years since I've nominated anything. Second, I'm not 100% that I identified every individual tornado, as they're not always reported, or verified by a reliable source. I largely used the National Weather Service, the National Climatic Data Center, and on occasion, corroborating news sources. There are a few different types of weather events that are included, such as waterspouts which went from the water to land (thus making them an official tornado), fire whirls (or fire tornadoes, yes, that's a thing and they're terrifying), landspouts and gustnadoes. After a fairly extensive search over the last nine months or so, I'm fairly sure that the article is comprehensive, well-written, well-cited, formatted to the standards that are expected, all that good stuff that makes for a featured list. But I have my blinders on, and I fully acknowledge that I might've made a mistake here or there, in which case, I'd love to fix it. If you have any minor or large issues, I'll do my best to address them. And if you enjoyed the article, then thanks for the read. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan620
Howdy HH, long time no talk! Hope you and yours are doing well. I'm saving this space for an image review; should be done in the next two to three days. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 09:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the slight delay; I had planned to post this yesterday or the night before, but I needed to (a) address comments on a GAN I'd submitted, (b) recover from a particularly lousy night's sleep, and (c) do some digging through California legal documents to verify the status of one of the images here. The image review passes; details below.
- All of the present images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
- Image sources check out across the board. Page numbers for a few of them were lacking at the time of nomination, but I took it upon myself to fix this issue over at Commons; see my recent edits there.
- All images are appropriately licensed. I note that the original Flickr upload for the image, which was taken by the Los Angeles Fire Department, claims full copyright. However, assuming my reading of the law is correct, the California Public Records Act states that images taken by California government agencies are in the public domain, thus overriding the Flickr claim.
- All images have sufficient alt text.
- The image review aside, I did notice a minor prose-related issue that prevents me from being able to fully support just yet. While the dates for most of the entries are followed by an en dash (good), there are also multiple instances where the date is followed by a hyphen (not so good). Once this is rectified, I will be able to offer my full support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding
!scope=col
to each header cell, e.g.! Year
becomes!scope=col | Year
. - You should make the country name in each row as a header cell and add need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.| 1987
becomes!scope=row | 1987
(on its own line). - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, but sorry for the delay MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs), it was a dank weekend.
- I added a caption for the county table, and also tweaked the caption for the other tables.
- As for your second comment, could you clarify? For the second, do you mean the table with the months or by time period? There no column for !year. As for your other comment, I changed the counties so they have the scope.
♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that as a general example. Specifically, for this list, in the Tornadoes by county table, the cells of the header row (County, EF/FU, etc) need column scope. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Z1720
- No licencing concerns
- Alt text used
- No px used
- Captions are fine
- File:Dolores 2015-07-15 1755Z.jpg: Source link is broken. Is there an archived version of the link?
- File:Carr Fire tornado 1.jpg: I added a page number
Just one concern. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review, Z1720 (talk · contribs). I re-uploaded the image of Dolores. I couldn't find the exact version of the link, as the version I saw online had the land outlined. Rather than finding the original, I just opted for the slightly different version of the same storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]
List of accolades received by TV Patrol
- Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 21:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because its format is almost identical to another one (which is a newscast) with the same class, List of accolades received by 24 Oras. Chompy Ace 21:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "the newscast's anchors changed significantly during its run" - if it is still being broadcast I would say "the newscast's anchors have changed significantly during its run"
- "Each segment has a unique topic, such as entertainment and weather" => "Each segment has a unique topic, such as entertainment or weather" (current wording could be interpreted as saying that there is a single segment which deals with entertainment and weather, which would be intriguing but I assume doesn't happen :-)
- That's all I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 23:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose— I am objecting to the "Wins 47 / Nominations 97" in the infobox, for reasons I have explained at Template talk:Infobox awards list#Totals should be avoided. Despite some canvassing, I have not received any feedback there, positive or negative. This !vote in the nature of a test case to spur discussion there. Basically, if the template is changed as I suggest then the FL criteria will change. It would be a simple matter to simply remove those two parameters from the infobox on this and other similar articles. jnestorius(talk) 11:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jnestorius, please strike oppose? This issue has been resolved. Chompy Ace 20:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the issue is not arithmetic; 44/100 is just as arbitrary as 47/97. jnestorius(talk) 10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jnestorius, I removed it, so done. Could you please strike oppose or give support? Chompy Ace 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, thanks jnestorius(talk) 14:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jnestorius, I removed it, so done. Could you please strike oppose or give support? Chompy Ace 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the issue is not arithmetic; 44/100 is just as arbitrary as 47/97. jnestorius(talk) 10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jnestorius, please strike oppose? This issue has been resolved. Chompy Ace 20:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from ZooBlazer
- Relatively short in terms of prose, so I didn't find any issues.
Image review - passes
- The logo for the series is the only image used. It has alt text, is properly licensed, and use obviously makes sense in the article.
Great work with the article. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 07:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Sgubaldo
- Add a full stop at the end of Notes c, d, e and f
- The link to all references involving the Philippine Entertainment Portal don't work for me. I'm not sure if it's an issue on my end though.
That's it! Sgubaldo (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Formatting
- Ref 1 needs trans-title
- Ref 33 Golden Dove Awards per MOS:TITLECAPS
- Ref 34 TV same as above
- Ref 39 remove extraneous location parameter Manila
Reliability
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Citations are professional and well-circulated news and independent sources
Verifiability
- Ref 2 - ok
- Ref 11 - ok
- Ref 21 - ok
- Ref 32 - ok
- Ref 41 - Alex Santos, Bernadette Sembrano aren't listed as nominees. TV Patrol World, TV Patrol Sabado, TV Patrol Linggo newscasters should be included here. Santos tied with Babao for Best Male TV Newscaster
- Ref 43 - Sembrano and Santos are not listed as nominees
- Ref 45 - Alex Santos is missing
- Ref 47 - Same as 45
- Ref 49 - Santos and Babao aren't listed as nominees, so is Davila
- Ref 53 / 54 - Julius Babao isn't listed as a nominee when in fact he won Best Male Newscaster
I'll stop here, as there are issues with missing nominees that need to be fixed. I see other years i.e. 2006 where Nene Tamayo is nominated for Best New Female TV Personality, which is also not in the table. Each of the years where sources are available should be revisited. I'll be willing to look at it again, but will not make any declaration for now. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pseud 14, I believe that most issues in the 1980s and 1990s did not have circulation on Philippine media for the newscast's awards, as did some years of the 2000s (e.g. the 2000 PMPC TV ceremony or the nominations of the 2006 PMPC TV ceremony). This should be addressed as well since I found every reference in the web for this list article. The newscast's World edition is a version of its national weekday one while the weekend (Sabado and Linggo) editions are separate ones with different set of anchors. Done for these reasons. Chompy Ace 10:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources for the 80s or 90s not in circulation is reasonable, however the weekend anchors nominated should be included. They are all under the TV Patrol flagship brand/franchise whether primetime/weekdnight or weekend block, and this list is about the awards won by the show. The TV Patrol article itself includes the weekend edition (TV Patrol Sabado redirects to it), so I don't see the exclusion of the weekend edition nominees/winners to be justified and logical. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pseud 14, done again. Chompy Ace 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources for the 80s or 90s not in circulation is reasonable, however the weekend anchors nominated should be included. They are all under the TV Patrol flagship brand/franchise whether primetime/weekdnight or weekend block, and this list is about the awards won by the show. The TV Patrol article itself includes the weekend edition (TV Patrol Sabado redirects to it), so I don't see the exclusion of the weekend edition nominees/winners to be justified and logical. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pseud 14, I believe that most issues in the 1980s and 1990s did not have circulation on Philippine media for the newscast's awards, as did some years of the 2000s (e.g. the 2000 PMPC TV ceremony or the nominations of the 2006 PMPC TV ceremony). This should be addressed as well since I found every reference in the web for this list article. The newscast's World edition is a version of its national weekday one while the weekend (Sabado and Linggo) editions are separate ones with different set of anchors. Done for these reasons. Chompy Ace 10:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has been open a long time, and there appears to be an unaddressed point of contention for a couple weeks regarding the inclusion of accolades for the weekend TV Patrol show. Chompy Ace do you intend to continue with this nomination? --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ref 40: OK
- Ref 41: Korina Sanchez is nominated for (Bandila, ABS-CBN 2); it should be Karen Davila (TV Patrol World, ABS-CBN 2)
- Ref 42: OK
- Ref 43: Bernadette Sembrano is not nominated for TV Patrol here and should be removed.
- Ref 44: OK
- Ref 45: OK
- Ref 46: OK
- Ref 47: OK
- Ref 48: OK
- Ref 49: OK
- Ref 50: OK
- Ref 51: OK
- Ref 52: Doesn't mention win by TV Patrol. I would replace it with this source [7]. It also cites that Ted Failon won. So update your table.
- Ref 53: OK
- Ref 54: OK
- Ref 55: OK
- Ref 56: OK
- Ref 57: OK
- Ref 58: OK
- Ref 59: OK
- Ref 60: OK
- Ref 61: OK
- Ref 62: Doesn't mention wins. This one does
- Ref 63: Alvin Elchico is missing here from the nominees
- Ref 64: Same as above. Alvin Elchico not listed
- Ref 65: OK
- Pseud 14, done. Chompy Ace 21:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [8].[reply]
List of accolades received by Interstellar
This is my first FLC and first candidate for a bronze star in general. I took inspiration from the style of User:Chompy Ace's numerous 'List of accolades received by....' FLs and have reworked the article extensively over the last few days. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by-comment
- The people's names in the "recipient(s)" column should sort based on surname, not forename (the surname of the first person listed if there's more than one) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
- Ref 7 should be after the comma, not before it
- I would add a comma after " Crowley's production design" to be consistent with comma use earlier
- That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TheDoctorWho
- I'd recommend linking the awards in the Infobox.
- "epic science fiction film" is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
- "The film was produced by Nolan" produced by Christopher or Jonathan?
- It would be useful to be able to sort the "results" column.
- There's one use of Christopher Nolan not linked in the awards table (Saturn Award for Best Writing), link it for consistency.
- Reference 15 needs a work (Black Reel Awards).
Great work on the list, not much more else for me to say! (I'm hoping to get a few more comments on a similar FLC of mine, if you have time down the road.) Best of luck, TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All linked.
- Changed to "epic science fiction film". Is that better?
- Clarified that it was produced by Christopher by changing "The film was produced by Nolan and his wife Emma Thomas under their label Syncopy, together with Lynda Obst Productions" to "Christopher Nolan also produced the film with his wife Emma Thomas, under their label Syncopy, and Lynda Obst Productions."
- Done.
- Linked.
- Added Black Reel Awards as publisher.
- Thank you for the comments! Sgubaldo (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A BLUESEA occurs when two links are located directly next to each other and appear to be a single link. The example given on the MOS page uses chess tournament (
[[chess]] [[tournament]]
) which can be confusing to readers who may believe that they are one link. Their solution was to either reword it to read tournament of chess ([[tournament]] of [[chess]]
) or to use the more specific link of chess tournament ([[chess tournament]]
). The word "film" can remain as part of the[[science fiction film]]
link if it's helpful, but the[[epic film]]
link directly before is the issue as it's separate from the link located directly after. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to "epic and science fiction film".
- P.S. This might be something to bring up to WP:FILM, because virtually all film articles use the format I had prior (even good articles like Inception or Interstellar itself and featured articles like Empire Strikes Back). Sgubaldo (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely notice that it's a commonly broken guideline, but I do try to fix it whenever possible. The other examples you named definitely should be addressed at some point, however they don't fall within the scope of this nomination. That said, everything looks great and this has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A BLUESEA occurs when two links are located directly next to each other and appear to be a single link. The example given on the MOS page uses chess tournament (
Support by Chompy Ace
Support. Great job as a nearly flawless list, and thanks for my credit as your inspiration! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by TV Patrol regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 19:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]
Turing Award
Knuth, Hopcroft, Lamport, Aho – all authors of CS textbooks, and all winners of the “Nobel Prize of computer science”. My third FL nom; something different this time. I’ve improved the lead, table accessibility, and added a bunch of references. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DBC
- Recipient column should sort based on surname, not forename -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan620
Placeholder for image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments:
- Images need alt text; as of time of writing, only the image of Turing himself has alt text.
- File:Kei younger.jpg is missing author information.
- Images are suitable for identifying their subjects, thereby adding encyclopedic value to the listicle.
- Licensing checks out across the board; all images are either PD or CC, with many having notes that permission for use was granted via VRT correspondence.
- Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dylan620: Thanks for the review. I've added alt text for all the images. Is the fact that the author info is missing for the Iverson photo a showstopper at FL? If so, I can remove that image. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824: No problem. I don't know for certain if it's a showstopper at FL, but I will say that the last time I brought an image that lacked authorship information at an FLC (which ultimately passed), the nominator seemed to agree that it was an issue and swapped out the image. The uploader of the Iverson image stated that permission had been granted by Iverson's estate, but we don't know for certain if the photo was actually taken by someone representing the estate. Also, at the risk of comparing apples to oranges, I've just looked back through some unsuccessful FLCs and noticed that in a few of them, an issue was that some refs were lacking authorship information. So I'd say remove the photo out of an abundance of caution. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dylan620: Thanks for the review. I've added alt text for all the images. Is the fact that the author info is missing for the Iverson photo a showstopper at FL? If so, I can remove that image. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
- major technical importance to computer science.[2] It is generally recognized as the highest distinction in computer science -- MOS:DUPLINK, unlink the second instance of computer science; perhaps worth switching it to in the field or in the field of study to avoid being repetitive.
- theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence[6] and a key contributor -- comma after artificial intelligence
- I would link Word War II, and Google on the first instance.
- That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I think the image of Turing would look better in the infobox rather than floating below it
- "and a key contributor to the Allied cryptanalysis of the Enigma cipher during World War II." - no source against this. Is it covered by the reference in the middle of the sentence?
- Entries in the "rationale" column which just consist of a single sentence fragment (eg 1966) don't need a full stop.
- "He is also known as the author, with Wheeler and Gill," - any reason not to show their forenames? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
magiciandude
- For the editor's notes, I would not put "warning" and instead write Per WP:NFCC, non-free images are not to be used on lists-->
- Are all the rationales quoted? If so, they should use quotation marks.
- See my FL Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame for entries without images. I would just put a dash instead of leaving it blank. But it's up to you.
Once these issues are addressed, I will gladly support this list. Erick (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Magiciandude: Fixed all. I also fixed the same issue in a different FL nom where a few photos were unavailable. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks both for the improvements to this article! Regarding the NFCC warnings -- the idea is to be very direct since editors on this page have repeatedly ignored warnings that have been less direct. (We must have had, oh, 5-10 edits to the page to add photos before the warnings were in place, after they were in place we still got one or two.) I'm open to ways to improve the warning but "Per WP:NFCC, non-free images are not to be used on lists" does not cut it in my experience, as the editors coming to the page to add images are not always familiar with the concept of free use. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. MPGuy2824 you discard the warning part. My final suggestion is that quotes within quotations should use a single quotation mark per MOS:QUOTE. Erick (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done fixed this Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Caleb Stanford@MPGuy2824 Awesome! I gladly support this article! Erick (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done fixed this Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. MPGuy2824 you discard the warning part. My final suggestion is that quotes within quotations should use a single quotation mark per MOS:QUOTE. Erick (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks both for the improvements to this article! Regarding the NFCC warnings -- the idea is to be very direct since editors on this page have repeatedly ignored warnings that have been less direct. (We must have had, oh, 5-10 edits to the page to add photos before the warnings were in place, after they were in place we still got one or two.) I'm open to ways to improve the warning but "Per WP:NFCC, non-free images are not to be used on lists" does not cut it in my experience, as the editors coming to the page to add images are not always familiar with the concept of free use. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]
Municipalities of Tabasco
Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 44 (!!) lists in North American jurisdictions. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Comments
- The captions to the images of the biggest three are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops. Done
- That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Images have alt text
- Images, including the map, are appropriately licensed
- Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article.
- This passes image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dank
- Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
- I recommend checking your table links ... for instance, Tenosique redirects to Tenosique de Pino Suárez and back to Tenosique again.
- I'm happy to make any changes but I unfortunately do not understand the comment, both the Tenosique links appear to be going to the correct place? Mattximus (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I just fixed it ... it was trying to go to Tenosique de Pino Suárez, but there's no such page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to make any changes but I unfortunately do not understand the comment, both the Tenosique links appear to be going to the correct place? Mattximus (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
- 3b. The sources appear to be reliable (but see below), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, 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. My Spanish is very poor, so I can't cover all of the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]
Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century
Following a helpful Peer review, I hope this attempt at a comprehensive list of Grade I listed buildings in England dating from the 20th century is ready for FLC. I've ensured there is a corresponding article for every entry. I've not quite achieved that level of completeness with the images, with three missing. The usual sources couldn't help, and two have exceptionally light on-line presences. To explain my thinking on the order, I've taken a thematic approach; cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings; and chronologically within those groups. The table is fully sortable. If nothing else, it will give interested editors the opportunity to derisively critique the inclusion of some structures, and enjoy suggesting their preferred alternatives. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
- What's the initial sort order of the table? It isn't the name of the building or the architect or the date of either completion or listing. It seems completely random, unless I am missing something obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s a very fair question, and one that was asked at PR. I went for thematic - cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings - and chronologically within that. Now, whether that was the right decision…? I could go strictly chronological, or alphabetical (although that seems equally random), or something else. Would appreciate views on the best approach. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think alphabetizing the name column would be best. I do like the thematic organization, but even then there's chapels interspersed with the churches, memorials with war memorials (but then other memorials later), and other irregularities like the house of St Catherine's College being organized with the college rather than other houses, which are separate from apartment blocks. Maybe change some of them to broader categories (like Bridge instead of Footbridge, Road bridge, and Suspension bridge) so sorting the Type column would work better.
- ChrisTheDude,Reywas92 - Many thanks indeed for the input. I've gone for the suggested Alphabetic approach, and I think it's better. I also took the opportunity to iron out a few other quirks; combining the Footnotes, simplifying the Types, and standardising titles. If either/both of you had time for a review, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think alphabetizing the name column would be best. I do like the thematic organization, but even then there's chapels interspersed with the churches, memorials with war memorials (but then other memorials later), and other irregularities like the house of St Catherine's College being organized with the college rather than other houses, which are separate from apartment blocks. Maybe change some of them to broader categories (like Bridge instead of Footbridge, Road bridge, and Suspension bridge) so sorting the Type column would work better.
- It’s a very fair question, and one that was asked at PR. I went for thematic - cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings - and chronologically within that. Now, whether that was the right decision…? I could go strictly chronological, or alphabetical (although that seems equally random), or something else. Would appreciate views on the best approach. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. I've added a parameter to the header template, so screen-reader-only captions can be added by putting
|caption=your_caption_text
as a template parameter. - I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PresN - Hi, apologies, but the technical aspects of setting up tables are pretty much beyond me, and I've not got a clue as to what I need to do in response to your comment. I've had a look at the relevant Accessibility page of the MoS and at the accompanying tutorial, but I'm afraid I still can't work out what I'm supposed to do. If you were able to give a little more guidance, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
Image review
Dropping a quick note that I'm currently working on an image review. So far I've gotten down to the letter 'H' – hoping to finish tonight or tomorrow. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The image review passes; details below:
- I'm a little dismayed that the alt text for each image consists solely of the building's name—see recent building FAs such as Felix M. Warburg House, 270 Park Avenue (1960–2021), and 550 Madison Avenue for examples of high-quality alt text for images of buildings—but upon further investigation, I discovered that
{{EH listed building row}}
puzzlingly makes no allowance for custom alt text. While I strongly believe this should be rectified, it would be unfair to mark down an FLC candidate for the failings of a template, and the alt text that is present in the listicle is better than nothing. - All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
- All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
- Sources for all images check out, although I did choose to AGF on a couple dead Flickr source links.
- The only other comment I have is that the empty image boxes (namely Johnston Monument, New House, and St. Catherine's College Gymnasium) should be made unprintable; see Help:Printing#Controlling_print for details.
- I'm a little dismayed that the alt text for each image consists solely of the building's name—see recent building FAs such as Felix M. Warburg House, 270 Park Avenue (1960–2021), and 550 Madison Avenue for examples of high-quality alt text for images of buildings—but upon further investigation, I discovered that
- Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dylan620 - First off, thanks very much for the review, and for the Support. Greatly appreciate the time you've taken. On the missing images, I'd be very pleased to make them unprintable - if I had any idea how to do so. I've tried to follow the instructions with the Johnston Memorial as a test, but it doesn't appear to have made any difference. Could you expand on the "how" I should go about this. I'm very sorry, but I'm rather a technical numpty on matters relating to templates (see Table captions above), and a lot else besides (see below). On the issue of alt text, I absolutely appreciate your concern. I've always tried to include useful alt text, e.g. Sandringham House, but I've no idea how to do it in this table, or even if it is possible. If there is a workaround I can adopt, I'd be pleased to do so. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @KJP1: No problem. After I wake up some more and have my morning coffee, I'm going to put in an edit request on the template's talk page. Similar to the issue with the alt text, the issue with the placeholder's printability appears to be one with the way the template is coded. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that I've followed through on this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dylan620 - First off, thanks very much for the review, and for the Support. Greatly appreciate the time you've taken. On the missing images, I'd be very pleased to make them unprintable - if I had any idea how to do so. I've tried to follow the instructions with the Johnston Memorial as a test, but it doesn't appear to have made any difference. Could you expand on the "how" I should go about this. I'm very sorry, but I'm rather a technical numpty on matters relating to templates (see Table captions above), and a lot else besides (see below). On the issue of alt text, I absolutely appreciate your concern. I've always tried to include useful alt text, e.g. Sandringham House, but I've no idea how to do it in this table, or even if it is possible. If there is a workaround I can adopt, I'd be pleased to do so. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SC
- "the vast majority at the lowest grade, Grade II.": do we need be told again, so soon, that Grade II is the lowest grade?
- Any reason "against" is bolded?
- Is it right to say Lutyens has "twenty-one buildings"? The OED stresses "buildings" have walls, roof and an interior space. Would "structures" also work, without giving a slightly misleading feel?
- Linking the St Cat's bike shed just on the words "bike shed" is a bit of an EASTEREGG – any chance the link could be tweaked slightly to make it clear it's not about bike sheds in general?
That's my lot. The technical breakdown of the listing details is excellent, and the table wonderful. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Tim riley
- "Lutyens is followed by the Dane, Arne Jacobsen" – is the architect's nationality relevant?
- You are inconsistent with your London addresses:
- A lot of them are in the City of Westminster, but though you say so for 55 Broadway, Westminster Cathedral, the Cavell, Queen Alexandra and Queen Victoria memorials and Rodin's Burghers, you don't say so for the Admiralty Arch, Buckingham Palace, Whitehall or Trafalgar Square.
- "City of London, London" looks silly to me, besides being inconsistently applied (to the Lloyds building but not to the Midland Bank in Poultry).
- You tell us the names of one other relevant London borough – Uxbridge – but not those in which are to be found Somers Town, the South Bank, Bloomsbury, Hampstead Garden Suburb, Highgate, Regent's Park, Twickenham, and Tower Hill.
- It would be nice to be consistent, but I must emphasise how much I have enjoyed making the acquaintance of this article again. Splendid stuff! Tim riley talk 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim riley - Many thanks for having a look. I shall try to get the London addresses consistent over the course of the afternoon - likely interrupted by a siesta! KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- An admirable plan. I usually have forty winks after lunch myself. Tim riley talk 12:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim riley - I hope they are now done, but I have 3 queries, all relating to Regent's Park. Our article tells me that this is split between Westminster and Camden. I've guessed that Camden covers the more northernly bits, and have therefore placed the Penguin Pool, the Gorilla House, and the Royal College of Physicians in Westminster. Do you happen to know whether that's right? KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's right. Prince Albert Road separates Camden to the north from Westminster to the south. I'm not sure our article is right in saying that any of the park is within the borders of Camden, though what the administrative arrangements rather than the geographical details are I know not. Tim riley talk 13:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim riley - I hope they are now done, but I have 3 queries, all relating to Regent's Park. Our article tells me that this is split between Westminster and Camden. I've guessed that Camden covers the more northernly bits, and have therefore placed the Penguin Pool, the Gorilla House, and the Royal College of Physicians in Westminster. Do you happen to know whether that's right? KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- An admirable plan. I usually have forty winks after lunch myself. Tim riley talk 12:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim riley - Many thanks for having a look. I shall try to get the London addresses consistent over the course of the afternoon - likely interrupted by a siesta! KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Serial
Coming in on the coattails, but. Copy-edited a couple of odd bits in the lead; the rest is perfection "from the beginning unto the end". And a beautiful table! Shame about those two missing images, of course. It might be worth asking at the relevant Wiki projects, perhaps? ——Serial Number 54129 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Serial Number 54129 - Really appreciate the comments and the Support. And glad you liked the list. I know, the two missing images are bloody infuriating! For the Johnston, I've asked at the Hertfordshire Project but had no joy. For a work by Gill, it is weirdly uncovered online, this [12] being the only image I've been able to find, and it's not usable. The problem with The New House is that the family guard their privacy, and there is absolutely no public access anywhere near. What images there are online are ferociously copyrighted! I shall continue to search. KJP1 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. for completeness, I've also asked at the University of Oxford project for a pic of the St Catz gym/squash courts, but also without success. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- p.p.s. I wonder if I could use the Johnston under Fair Use, as I did for Tower of the Koutoubia Mosque? I might ask Nikkimaria. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always worth asking, but I've found that it's difficult to get justification for free-use use in a list, which is why there are a couple of gaps in this article I wish I could fill. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, KJP1, I think that the image has to be "the object of discussion in an article", rather than a small portion of it. That would be why the tower passed the NFCC criteria—because the article was about the tower itself—whereas that may not be the case here. Still asking. ——Serial Number 54129 13:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, so a passing mention in a list is insufficient grounds. It's a pity, as gaps in lists are a real bugbear! KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please get a second opinion though! I wouldn't want to wrongly rob an image from you :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, so a passing mention in a list is insufficient grounds. It's a pity, as gaps in lists are a real bugbear! KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- p.p.s. I wonder if I could use the Johnston under Fair Use, as I did for Tower of the Koutoubia Mosque? I might ask Nikkimaria. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. for completeness, I've also asked at the University of Oxford project for a pic of the St Catz gym/squash courts, but also without success. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]
List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1961
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After working on 50 years of R&B number ones, I decided to take a break and jump to a different style of music - quite the switch from Prince to Connie Francis! Feedback as ever will be very gratefully received and very quickly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
- The table is missing its caption.
- Since the chart's name was "Easy listening" at the time, maybe the first few sentences could be replaced with "Easy Listening was a chart published .... Since then the chart has undergone a number of name changes and is now published as/under the name 'Adult Contemporary'."
- That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
- Initially the listing was compiled -- comma after initially
- In 1961 seven different songs -- comma after the year
- "The Boll Weevil Song" should sort under "B"
- That's all from me. Great work on this new listing. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: - thanks - done!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Passed
- Images have alt text
- Images are appropriately licensed as PD
- Images are relevant and have succinct captios. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Sources match what they are being cited for
The only thing I found was in the row for October 9. Should "Orchestra" be capitalized? In the source it says "His Orch.", so if we're matching the source we'd want both words capitalized. However I do think downcasing is the right option in this instance, as "His Orch."/"his Orchestra" are not proper names. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: - good point. I "lower cased" the O -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 01:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [15].[reply]
List of World Heritage Sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
The DRC has five sites on the main list and for tentative sites. Four sites are listed as endangered. Standard style and formatting for WHS lists. The photos could be better but since these sites are somewhat more difficult to reach than in some other places, I guess what is currently on Commons will have to do. Feel free to suggest better alternatives. The list for Zimbabwe is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- The legend for endangered sites is the color and a cross, but an asterix is used in the table for those sites.
- "it has the highest biodiversity among national parks of Africa" - needs a ref since it is not mentioned in the UNESCO refs provided.
- "It is home to mountain gorilla" to "It is home to animals such as the mountain gorilla" OR "species like the".
- "as well as threatened primate species chimpanzee," to "as well as threatened primate species like the chimpanzee,"
- wikilink "subalpine" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AK
- A landscape photo of the national park itself would be better than the gorilla closeup for Virunga imo.
- "spans over an active" to "spans an active"
- "which peak above" to "which reach over"
- "are a part" to "are part"
- "alpine" is not a habitat.
- Link steppes.
- "species such as...large numbers of hippopotamus" Grammatically incorrect, also needs a conjunction.
- "last worldwide population" What is a worldwide population, maybe "world's last population" better states what's intended.
- "Mainly because...poaching resumed" Run-on, split up.
- Black-and-white colobuses are not a species.
- "In addition...extinct volcanoes." Seems weird to say in addition since the previous sentence talks about the park's fauna, not geography.
- "2021, the site has been listed" to "2021, the site was listed"
- "forests, dominated" Comma unnecessary
- Photo of Okapi Wildlife Reserve would be better than an okapi from a zoo.
- "traditional pygmy people Mbuti and Efé" Reads weird, maybe "Mbuti and Efé pygmy peoples"?
- "18 050" BCE years can be written with commas.
- "years, over" Comma unnecessary
- "and they illustrate" to "and illustrate"
- "animals, for" Comma should be a semicolon.
- That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks! As for Virunga and Okapi images, I was considering some alternatives, but for Virunga most of the images are either low-resolution or poor contrast mountains or forest images (or have people on, which is non-ideal for this list) while for Okapi there are some other okapi images but none from the park itself. I am open to suggestions. Tone 15:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a couple tweaks. Have a couple more comments: Afromontane isn't a noun or habitat, and the IUCN cite in the Garamba text clearly isn't citing everything before it. AryKun (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, it's Afromontane forests. Hm, what do you suggest for Garamba? Splitting the ref or adding the IUCN at the end? Tone 05:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The IUCN ref's only citing one detail, so I'd just add the UNESCO refs after "population of the northern white rhinoceros". AryKun (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that UNESCO refers to the situation at the time of inscription, while a more detailed explanation of the current situation is in the IUCN. I will move the ref to the end and that fixes the issue :) Tone 07:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've doubled the UNESCO refs and added them before and after the IUCN refs. While I understand bundling refs at the end of a paragraph if you're using them to cite multiple statements throughout that para, refs that cite a single fact should be kept close to that statement to avoid the association bw the two eventually getting lost in future edits. AryKun (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that UNESCO refers to the situation at the time of inscription, while a more detailed explanation of the current situation is in the IUCN. I will move the ref to the end and that fixes the issue :) Tone 07:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The IUCN ref's only citing one detail, so I'd just add the UNESCO refs after "population of the northern white rhinoceros". AryKun (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, it's Afromontane forests. Hm, what do you suggest for Garamba? Splitting the ref or adding the IUCN at the end? Tone 05:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a couple tweaks. Have a couple more comments: Afromontane isn't a noun or habitat, and the IUCN cite in the Garamba text clearly isn't citing everything before it. AryKun (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks! As for Virunga and Okapi images, I was considering some alternatives, but for Virunga most of the images are either low-resolution or poor contrast mountains or forest images (or have people on, which is non-ideal for this list) while for Okapi there are some other okapi images but none from the park itself. I am open to suggestions. Tone 15:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Brindile1
- Poaching and deforestation should be wikilinked in the second paragraph
- The Upemba Depression has a public-domain photo in its article, is there some reason why this isn't used in the list? Brindille1 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks. I added the Upemba image. I suppose the reason I didn't include it from beginning is that the nominated site is about archaeological sites with cemeteries, which is not something that is shown on the image, but since the image still shows the wide region, I suppose it is fine. Tone 08:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great list! Brindille1 (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks. I added the Upemba image. I suppose the reason I didn't include it from beginning is that the nominated site is about archaeological sites with cemeteries, which is not something that is shown on the image, but since the image still shows the wide region, I suppose it is fine. Tone 08:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- I second Brindille1's (courtesy ping) question regarding the lack of an Upemba Depression image in this listicle.
- Not really a dealbreaker, but I'm not sure if File:Virunga National Park Gorilla.jpg quite feels right for a top-level encyclopedic listing. It seems... affected, for want of a better word? I looked through a Commons cat for other suitable images and came across a few that impressed me, such as this, this, and this. If you insist on the image currently being used, then it's not something to oppose over, but I do suggest checking out those images and seeing if you think any of them would work better here :)
- All images have appropriate alt text.
- All images appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
- Sourcing for each image checks out.
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Upemba added, explained above. I switched the gorilla image, the suggested one is indeed better. Tone 08:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [16].[reply]
List of New England Revolution seasons
- Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this list because I think it's a well-formatted list and because it's my favorite team! The prose has been updated to give an overview of the team, the competitions they play in, and their history. The table gives a detailed overview of each season and their record. I took inspiration from List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons, which is a featured list for another MLS team. Brindille1 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by comments
- Wikilink the first usages of "league" and "conference".
- I think both of these are MOS:OL, as they both should be understood most anyone reading the article, but I don't feel strongly and added the links.
- In the table heading use Template:abbr like in the Seattle Sounders list.
- Is the league column necessary in the table? They have been in the same league since their establishment.
- What is QR2 and QR3 in the USOC column.
- In that same column, the sorting is weird, Ro32 is shown as better than Ro16, and RU is shown as worse than SF. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, addressed each of these. Added QR2 and QR3 to the key. Brindille1 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How is QR2 different from R2?
- The sorting of the USoC column is still weird. I'm getting this order when I sort it in ascending order "qr3, qr2, r2, r3, r4, Ro32". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824
- "How is QR2 different from R2?"
- >>> For a few years, the USOC had MLS teams qualify by playing in a miniature tournament before qualifying for the tournament proper (all sources I've seen list these rounds as part of the tournament). So QR2 is the second qualifying round, and R2 is the second round of the tournament proper.
- "The sorting of the USoC column is still weird."
- >>> I initially based the sorting for each column of results is based on the number of teams left in the competition when the Revolution were eliminated. Given that the QR's are arguably not the tournament proper, I've switched it to QF > Ro16 > R4 > R3 > QR3 > QR2 which should hopefully be more intuitive Brindille1 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- When I sort the USOC column in descending order, I get the following : R2 > QR2 > QR3. This clashes with your explanation above.
- Can you paraphrase the above explanation (about QR2/3) and add it as as a note? Also add a note for PR. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824: That's an error, it now sorts "R2>QR3>QR2". I added a note to the instances of QR2/QR3 as well which I hope clarifies any confusion. Brindille1 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, addressed each of these. Added QR2 and QR3 to the key. Brindille1 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
- The top goalscorer column is sorting based on the nationality rather than on the player's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it now sorts by last name. Brindille1 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding
!scope=col
to each header cell, e.g.!rowspan=2|Season
becomes!scope=col rowspan=2|Season
. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use!scope=colgroup
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, this is fixed now. Brindille1 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Z1720
- Ref 11: Archive is a broken link
- Seems to work fine for me https://web.archive.org/web/20080321234537/http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20080313&content_id=143146&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp Brindille1 (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 12: The author is Major League Soccer Communications
- Ref 13: The author is SUM Communications
- Ref 14 and 23 are the same source. They should be merged together.
- Ref 21: The author is @Opencup Staff
- Ref 24: The author is Staff Writer
- Ref 30: Per MOS:ALLCAPS the title should not be in all caps.
- Sometimes the publisher is wikilinked (ref 41 & 42) while other times they are not (Ref 1 & 2). This should be consistent in the article.
Source check: No concerns with refs 11, 14, 32, 44, 46
- Ref 2: Could not verify the following: "based in Foxborough, Massachusetts", "The club was established in 1995 as one of ten original MLS teams"
- Removed this reference and added new ones.Brindille1 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 16: "The club holds the record for the most points in a single season, with 73 points in the 2021 season." The source does not verify that this record still stands.
- Ref 18: Source says that the 1,529 attendance record was in 2020. Also, 2024's attendance number is lower. Were there COVID restrictions that year?
- The first one is a typo. For the second one, I qualified it by saying "as of the end of the 2023 season". I don't think this is entirely necessary, as the paragraph starts with the same qualifier, but happy to clarify it here. Brindille1 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Z1720: Thank you for the thorough review. I've addressed each of these comments. Thanks! Brindille1 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "is an soccer team"..?
- " The premier club competition in North American soccer since 1962." - I would suggest " The premier club competition in North and Central American soccer since 1962."
- Pink colour for "last place" also needs a symbol for accessibility purposes. This doesn't apply to 1st/2nd/3rd as in those cases it is obvious from the number
- That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude Thanks for reviewing, I've corrected those issues. Brindille1 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [17].[reply]
List of birds of New Brunswick
First ever featured list nomination! I updated the list (additions/removals/tag changes) with current information, which can be found here (this is not a full list but rather an addendum update from 2023, so I also used the 2017 checklist to double check the tags). I also added photos, copyedited some of the families' descriptions, and added a description introducing the reader to New Brunswick and its geography. I took reference from the recently-promoted List of birds of Alberta and its nomination to make edits to the New Brunswick list, and reused a good amount of references to make sure each family description has citations here as well. Improving New Brunswick-related topics on Wikipedia has been my top priority since I began actively editing a year ago, and I'm more than happy to nominate this for featured list status. I do not have access to the book that the Alberta list nominator used for the family descriptions so I am more than happy to rewrite them if needed using alternate sources such as Birds of the World, which I have an institutional access to. B3251 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Move Old World vulture link to first usage
- Suggest linking Old World flycatchers
- Passerine is inconsistently capitalised
- "The vireos are a group of small to medium-sized passerine birds mostly restricted to the New World," - link New World?
- "The thrushes are a group of passerine birds that occur mainly but not exclusively in the Old World" - same with Old World
- "The yellow-breasted chat is the [....] and are" - grammatical disagreement here
- Under Cardinals and allies there's no line break after the order and family
- That's all I got - awesome work!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Y @ChrisTheDude everything fixed, thank you for the comment! B3251 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grungaloo
Great to see this! I took the List of Birds of Alberta to FL and I'm glad to see other Canadian provinces getting the same treatment!
- Lead - Accidental vs Rare. I wouldn't use the word "rare" to describe accidentals since then it's hard to distinguish how it's different from rare. Try something like "a species that does not often occur...".
- which has disputed sovereignty between New Brunswick and Maine - The sovereignty dispute is between Canada and the USA technically, would reword this to state that but you can still say that each Province/State includes it in their territory.
- Gulls, terns, and skimmers - I left out any discussion of skimmers in the family description since none appear in Alberta, but for New Bruinswick I'd suggest adding a line describing them. If you'd like I can look at the reference book I used and add that in.
Everything else looks great! grungaloo (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the adequate changes but if you could help out with the reference for skimmers it would be much appreciated. I have institution access to birdsoftheworld but not much was mentioned about skimmers aside from "skimmers use their highly specialized bills to snag their prey from the surface of calm water, often in gracefully coordinated bands." Thanks! B3251 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- "They typically feed on seeds and fruit plants and produce". Add a comma after "plants".
- "Their soft plumage is cryptically coloured". Probably worth linking "cryptically coloured" to camouflage.
- In Shearwaters and petrels: "long outer functional primary". Either a word is missing at the end, or a wikilink needs to be added.
- "The bill is also long, decurved in the case of the ibises" Add a wikilink to explain "decurved", or replace with "downwardly curved". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan620
Big fan of birds here. Always love seeing the cute little feathery critters whenever I'm out and about. I'll try to have an image review done within the next couple days :) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments:
- Images need alt text.
- File:Sharp-shinned Hawk (50958298391).jpg contains a watermark in the lower-left corner of the photo. Commons does have other images of the species available to choose from.
- Sourcing for each image is verified, though I did AGF on a dead Flickr link for an uploaded that has since been made unavailable on their site, whether by deletion or an adjustment in privacy settings.
- The encyclopedic value is where this set of images really shines; I see a lot of strikingly detailed photos of a wide range of fascinating specimens.
- Once alt text has been added (or a reasonable justification against doing so has been provided) and a new A. striatus image has been selected, I look forward to supporting this nomination. Great work overall. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for my late response, Done for the alt text and changing the image for A. striatus. Thank you, B3251 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dylan620: (forgot to do this) B3251 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with the caveat that I made a few minor adjustments. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the adjustments made. I just recently thought of this and figured I'd ask here, but would it be worth adding the French names of each species in prose due to New Brunswick having an official bilingual status? B3251 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with the caveat that I made a few minor adjustments. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dylan620: (forgot to do this) B3251 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for my late response, Done for the alt text and changing the image for A. striatus. Thank you, B3251 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Z1720
- File:Poecile hudsonicus 7.jpg: the link to the image doesn't work, but the image was reviewed in 2010 as it was uploaded from Flickr. I am inclined to say that this upload message still stands.
- Suggest replacing the purple martin image as the angle and railing in the image makes it difficult to see the bird.
- File:Posing Razorbill (52058500088).jpg and File:Atlantic Puffin - Fratercula arctica, Machias Seal Island, New Brunswick.jpg: Per MOS:UPRIGHT, use upright instead of px in image sizing.
- Alt text is in all images.
- Captions are fine
Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done any necessary changes, also changed the image of the boreal chickadee B3251 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh
- Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|April 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description
- Ref 1 – Remove the website parameter, this part is covered by the publisher
- Ref 1 – Add author and publish date
- Ref 5 – Please change this to list Tourism New Brunswick as the publisher instead of just the website
- Ref 6 – Use Bay of Fundy as the publisher instead of the website
- Ref 7 – Remove the website parameter, the publisher is listed and that's adequete
- Ref 10 – Wikilink American Ornithological Society
- Ref 14 and 24 – Wikilink Animal Diversity Web
- Ref 15 – No access date listed
- Ref 17 – No access date
- Ref 18 – Wikilink Cornell Lab of Ornithology
- Ref 19 – Wikilink Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
- Ref 21 – Remove the website parameter
- Ref 21 – I'm not seeing where you get the date of 7 November 2014 for this reference
- Ref 22 – Remove the website from this reference, covered by the publisher
- Ref 32 – Use (and wikilink) Encyclopædia Britannica as the publisher instead
- Ref 32 – Remove the website parameter, covered by the publisher
- Refs 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, and 39 – Add wikilink to Birds of the World
- A number of these are missing access dates, please review and add where possible
- Consider running WP:IABOT to add more archive links where possible
That's what I got in my initial review. Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: Done making the necessary changes, as well as a few other improvements. I appreciate the extensive ref review, I'm definitely going to take these tips into consideration in the future beyond FL candidacy! B3251 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [18].[reply]
List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1980s
Taking a break from the Latin pop/tropical #1 singles while I work on the songs that reached #1 in 2001. I haven't mentioned, but I also love 80s music in Latin pop and tropical music formats. Since the Latin Pop Airplay didn't exist back then, I figured I'd do it by albums. As always, I look forward to addressing any issues! Erick (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "José José was also the artist with the most number-one albums of the 1980s with Promesas (1985), Siempre Contigo (1986), and Soy Así (1987)" => "José José was also the artist with the most number-one albums of the 1980s, also topping the chart with Promesas (1985), Siempre Contigo (1986), and Soy Así (1987)"
- "they were best-selling Latin pop albums of 1986–88, respectively" => "they were the best-selling Latin pop albums of 1986–88, respectively"
- "Un Hombre Solo (1987) by Promesas had the longest-running number one " => "Un Hombre Solo (1987) by Promesas was the longest-running number one "
- "Emmanuel and Julio Iglesias were the only artists to have more than two chart-toppers." => "Emmanuel and Julio Iglesias were the only other artists to have more than two chart-toppers." (because you already said that Jose Jose had four)
- I might also be tempted to change it to "Julio Iglesias and Emmanuel", as currently it could be taken that Emmanuel also had the surname Iglesias (in the same way that you might say, say "Julio and Enrique Iglesias")
- "while the artist was on temporary retirement" => "while the artist was in temporary retirement" (also in image caption)
- "Five female acts had reached number one on the chart during the 1980s" => "Five female acts reached number one on the chart during the 1980s"
- "Pantoja had the best-selling Latin pop of 1989" => "Pantoja had the best-selling Latin pop album of 1989"
- That's it I think - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review @ChrisTheDude! I'll review one of your lists in return. Just ping me what you want me to review. Erick (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One further question.......the lead says "Promesas was the longest-running number one with 32 weeks" but I am only seeing 17 weeks in the table......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude Ah okay, I see where I went wrong. I counted each week twice by accident. I amended both Promesas and Iglesias's total weeks at number one with the sources provided by the Billboard database themselves. I hope that helps. Erick (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- José José's photo is from 2011. Add a "(pictured in 2011)" just after his name in the image caption. Same for the other photos which aren't from the 1980s.
- I always need to do a double take on the word "bi-weekly" (wondering whether it means twice a week, or once in two weeks). Consider replacing it with "fortnightly".
- "José José was also the artist with the most number-one albums of the 1980s also topping the chart with Promesas (1985), Siempre Contigo (1986), and Soy Así (1987), which were the best-selling Latin pop albums of 1986–88, respectively." Quite a bit of redundancy there: "number-one albums", "topping the chart" and "best-selling ... albums".
- The sentence about Camilo Sesto doesn't seem very relevant for the lead. Remove it, unless the album has achieved some other distinction too.
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ caption_text instead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824 Thanks for the feedback! I did my best regarding the redundancy part and addressed everything else. Let me know if I missed anything. Erick (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by AJona1992
Leaving this here as a placeholder, will review shortly. – jona ✉ 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You could briefly explain why this chart is significant and why its incorporation perfectly ties in with the genre's rise in popularity. For example, the emergence of "Latin pop" as a distinct genre in the 1980s, its entry into the Amrican music industry in the 1980s, while this page elucidates Latin pop's ascendancy in the 1980s in Miami, attributing it to significant migration, and by the 1980s Latin pop had become the most commercially successful Latin music genre in the US. A concise sentence on the genre's emergence in the United States would be helpful, you don't have to use all of these sources as they were just examples of what I found online.
- Consider providing additional context or insights about the various albums that you've highlighted in the lead. For instance, you could briefly discuss the impact of these albums on the Latin pop genre or their cultural relevance during the 1980s so that it could enhance the reader's understanding. For example, the first entry of the chart was nominated for a Grammy Award, while the last entry of the chart garnered a pop-ballad album of the year honor and is considered to be her breakthrough album of her career.
- Overall, the list effectively presents important information about key artists and their chart-topping albums. Above I suggested providing additional context for both the artists/albums and the chart to further improve its readability and engagement. Hopes this helps, – jona ✉ 22:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AJona1992 Thank you very much for the view, it was very insightful! I mainly added the popularity of Latin pop and the baladas in general and used the Lo Nuestro Awards instead of the Grammys since Univision and Billboard partnered with each other at the time. Erick (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Passes conditionally; see below for details.
- Clothing details should be removed from the alt texts for File:José José.png and File:Isabel Pantoja - 03.jpg; the guideline on alt text advises against mentioning clothing aside from in articles related to fashion. Otherwise, the alt text here is excellent.
- Sourcing verifies for each image, though I am choosing to AGF with regards to File:Julio Iglesias.jpg, where the Flickr source link is dead.
- All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
- All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
With the only issue being minor and easily fixable, I am going to conditionally support this nomination on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Ref 1 – Should not be defaulting to the archived version
- Ref 1 – Add author
- Refs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 – Add |via=[[Google Books]]. Though, based on your wikilinking scheme, you'll only want to wikilink on ref 2
- Refs 6, 13, 50, 108, 127 – These Billboard.com refs are missing archive links, please add them
- Refs 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16 – No archive links
- Ref 16 – Please note this as an inaccessible sources without an account (or subscription?)
Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh I think I got them all. Let me know if I missed any. Erick (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [19].[reply]
List of Better Call Saul episodes
- Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I have improved this significantly in the past few days. This is my third FLNom, so I feel as I owe it to reviewers to review other noms so I hope to slowly provide a few DBC and enventually provide full reviews. For the WikiCup my other active FLC is a co-nom with User:Lady Lotus Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ZooBlazer
Better Call Saul is an American television drama series created by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, which aired on AMC, it premiered in 2015 and concluded in 2022.
Put a period after AMC and start a new sentence for the premiere and conclusion.Over the course of the series, 63 episodes aired over six seasons
--> 63 episodes aired over six seasonsThe sixth season was split in two parts
--> split into- Remove the link to AMC in the ratings section. That's a WP:DUPLINK.
- I suggest hiding the graph for now until that situation is resolved.
That's all I've got. Looks pretty good overall. -- ZooBlazer 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All coments have been addressed except the last one as I couldn't figure out how to do so without removing the graph. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "The series was officially greenlighted" => "The series was officially greenlit"Done
- Also, is there a way to avoid using "series" twice in that one short sentence?Done
- "The season was planned to release in 2014" => "The season was planned to be released in 2014"Done
- "A thirteen episode second season" => "A thirteen-episode second season"Done
- "However, in November 2016 the season" => "In November 2016, however, the season"Done
- "The sixth season was split in two parts," => "The sixth season was split into two parts,"Done
- "Slippin' Jimmy, is a animated" - no reason for that comma thereDone
- "engages in some hardcore slipcanery" - literally no idea what that last word means, is there an appropriate link?
- It seems to be a made up word Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above description appears verbatim on IMDB as do the descriptions for the other SJ episodes. Have they been copied from IMDB, which would be WP:COPYVIO?
- That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The descriptions were already their so I'll put a notice on the slippin Jimmy page, but given how the other descriptions were hidden on the list should those be hidden as well? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They need total deletion, as they are copyright violations -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the text from the slippin Jimmy page and request rev deletion. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They need total deletion, as they are copyright violations -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The descriptions were already their so I'll put a notice on the slippin Jimmy page, but given how the other descriptions were hidden on the list should those be hidden as well? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TheDoctorWho
- I would link the first use of "second season" rather than second. Done
- "The first season premiered on February 8, 2015, and ended on April 6." → "The series premiere aired on February 8, 2015, and the first season concluded on April 6." - Makes for a better flow and allows you to link the episode similar to how the finale is linked later on. Done
- The paragraph regarding renewals and air dates appears to be largely in chronological order. The exception is the portion about the sixth season renewal. Is there a particular reason for this? If not, I'd move it for a better flow. August-October 2018 → January 2020 → February-April 2020 rather than August-October 2018 → February-April 2020 → January 2020.
- Changed to be in order. Done
- "with the first part ran from" → "with the first part running from" (or remove "with") Done
- It feels a little odd that the second season header contains renewal information while none of the others do? I'd either remove it from that one or add it to the rest for consistency. It's already in the lead so we're not missing anything if it's removed, or the sources are easily available if you decide to add it to the rest.
- Deadline → Deadline Hollywood in reference 16 to match the other source from this site. Done
That's all I have, not much to say! If you're still looking for additional candidates to review, I'm still looking for a few more on this one. Good work on the list, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason the season 2 header brings up renewal information is due to the episode count changing Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, I won't oppose just because of that nor will I oppose over my second comment since it's a personal wording preference. I can see you already fixed points one and three, but I would like to see the fourth and sixth comment addressed before I do support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Finished addressing concerns. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfect! Support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Finished addressing concerns. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, I won't oppose just because of that nor will I oppose over my second comment since it's a personal wording preference. I can see you already fixed points one and three, but I would like to see the fourth and sixth comment addressed before I do support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Trailblazer101
- "
Better Call Saul is an American television drama series created by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, which aired on AMC.
" → "Better Call Saul is an American television drama series created by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould that aired on AMC." Done - "
It premiered in 2015 and concluded in 2022.
" → "The series premiered in 2015 and concluded in 2022." Since we're starting a new sentence and the following one also starts with "it" Done - "
In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Gilligan confirmed that the series would have a lighter tone than Breaking Bad.
" → "Gillan confirmed in October 2014 that the series would have a lighter tone than Breaking Bad." Typically, the publication source such as interviews are not notable or relevant. What is is who and when it was said, and the timeframe seems to be a beneficial aspect to include here instead of namedropping THR. Done - In the "Season 2" section: "
However, in November 2016 the season was reduced to 10 episodes.
" Add a comma between "2016" and "the". Done - While not as necessary to my support, given the likes of Better Call Saul and Slippin' Jimmy are titles that are italicized, when they are linked to in the {{Main}} template, I suggest changing to this code:
{{Main|Better Call Saul season 1{{!}}''Better Call Saul'' season 1}}
(for example). That intentionally makes the typically italicized title unitalicized when the rest of the plain text is italicized.
That will be it for me! Great work on this! Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask what would that last thing achieve? It seems to leave season the season number italicized and the series name not? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. That's just something I've seen across other articles. I believe it has to do with some italics MoS, though I cannot readily locate it and I don't think it is as necessary. I believe the main intent behind it is to ensure italicized works are distinguished from the regular text. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline for that is WP:ITHAT. Indagate (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to know thanks Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trailblazer101: Adressed all of your feedback. All's left is the source review so hopefully someone will get that done soon. :D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Spectacular! I Support. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trailblazer101: Adressed all of your feedback. All's left is the source review so hopefully someone will get that done soon. :D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to know thanks Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline for that is WP:ITHAT. Indagate (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. That's just something I've seen across other articles. I believe it has to do with some italics MoS, though I cannot readily locate it and I don't think it is as necessary. I believe the main intent behind it is to ensure italicized works are distinguished from the regular text. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Refs 27–36, 48–67 – Wikilink TV by the Numbers for consistency. Note that refs 38 through 47 already wikilink here properly. Done
- Refs 68–77 – Update to "ShowBuzz Daily" from "Showbuzz Daily" to match what the source uses and the refs uses later (refs 80–91)Done
- Refs 68–77, 80–91 – I understand that ShowBuzz Daily redirects to Mitch Metcalf, but it's still useful to wikilink the publisher in case an article is ever created. Done
- What makes the above references (ShowBuzz Daily) reliable? They're hosted on a wordpress site which is usually a red flag for reliability.
- ShowBuzz's relability comes from Metcalf. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 95 – Is the website "TV Series Finale" considered a reliable source which is generally accepted for these lists? I recognize it's only being used for Nielsen ratings, but being that I'm unfamiliar with reviewing these particular types of lists, I wasn't sure if there was a better source for Nielsen ratings.
- Yes its used on the list for Community, Game of Thrones, and The Good Place. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've got. Please ping me when you've made changes and/or are looking for a response from me. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: I've made changes. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While others may prefer it that way, I don't like in-line replies to my feedback, it makes it a very confusing conversation to follow.
- You did not change "Showbuzz Daily" to "ShowBuzz Daily" where appropriate.
- I'm not sold on the reliability/expertise of Mitch Metcalf, who's article has been marked with a questionable notability tag since 2018. Is there anything else to signal that he's considered an expert in the field? Have any other past FLC nominators used this a source in a number of their lists? Do any major sites use him as a guest writer / cite his work at all?
- Also please consider that usage of the done template is discouraged, per the supporting and objecting section at the top of WP:FLC. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Showbuzz passed the season 5 and 6 GANs. In terms of FLCs you have Adventure Time, Grey's Anatomy and SpongeBob. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: I also fixed the ShowBuzz thing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While others may prefer it that way, I don't like in-line replies to my feedback, it makes it a very confusing conversation to follow.
Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.