Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2022

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, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [1].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh

Nominator(s): Tone 09:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Bangladesh has three sites on the list and a further five on the tentative list. The latter nominations are rather old, from the 1990s, so the descriptions are very brief (but still suffice). The list for Laos has just been promoted and the list for Sri Lanka is seeing some support, so I am adding a new nom. Tone 09:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "The city represents some of most significant" => "The city represents some of the most significant"
• "home to a large population of Bengal tigers (one pictured)" - it isn't (unless it's hiding under the water)
• "The site comprises the remains about 50" => "The site comprises the remains of about 50"
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Done, thanks. Not sure what was with the tiger, there definitely isn't tiger there :) Maybe I had another image in mind when working on the text. Tone 21:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by EN-Jungwon

Resolved comments from -- EN-Jungwon 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

* Alt text on all images looks good. In the tentative list table The "Year listed" and "UNESCO criteria" columns need to be switched. Is there a reason why the UNESCO reference number is not mentioned here? The Lalmai-Mainamati Group of monuments should sort by "Lalmai-Mainamati", not "The" ({{sort|Lalmai-Mainamati Group of monuments|[[Mainamati|The Lalmai-Mainamati Group of monuments]]}}) -- EN-Jungwon 11:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! I fixed the year listed column, great you spotted it. As for the tentative unesco reference number, these get sometimes updated when the nomination is improved, so I am leaving them out in the tentative lists as a rule. As for sorting, we are never using specific sorting templates, as sometimes The is a part of the name and sometimes just the article, so that would create possible confusion how to sort. Tone 13:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Support -- EN-Jungwon 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• "was listed in 1997, and is a natural site" --> I don't think that comma is really needed — "is a natural site" isn't an independent clause.
• I also fixed some of the sorting orders.

That's all. ~ HAL333 07:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! I removed the comma. As for the sorting, I usually don't do it (as mentioned above) but no issue here from my side. Tone 10:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 17:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This hasn't been open as long as usual, but as a short list that's part of a series, I think it's fine to promote without waiting another few weeks. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:01, 31 December 2022 (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, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [2].

---

List of winners of Triple Crown of Motorsport races

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The Triple Crown of Motorsport is an unofficial achievement for motor racing drivers that consists of victory in the three most prestigious races in all of motorsport, the 24 Hours of Le Mans, the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix. This list has the names of every driver who has won a Triple Crown race, including Graham Hill who is the only driver to complete the Triple Crown of Motorsport. Looking forward to all comments on this list! EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Quick comment – "Graham Hill in second with seven wins" feels like it needs "is" after the name. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "and the Monaco Grand Prix street circuit race for Formula One cars at the Circuit de Monaco contested annually" - this wording makes it sound like the other two are not held annually
  • Clarified that all three races are held annually EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• "took over driving duties from Harroun (1911), Dawson (1912), Milton (1923) and DePaolo (1925), respectively" - don't think that last comma is needed
  • Removed EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• "Ford decided to stage a photo finish and the Automobile Club de l'Ouest declared Amon and McLaren the 1966 winners" - I would change this to "Ford decided to stage a photo finish but the Automobile Club de l'Ouest declared Amon and McLaren the 1966 winners" as (if I have interpreted the source correctly) the decision scuppered Ford's attempt to engineer a dead heat. Is that right.....?
  • Reworded the sentence slightly little from the change suggested EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Made changes based on the three points you've raised EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Airship

• There should be some acknowledgement of the alternative definition of the Triple Crown (Indy, Le Mans, F1 title)
• No need to include the "of Motorsport" after the first sentence.
• Prose of the second paragraph could be significantly smoothened.
  • "Tom Kristensen, with nine victories, has won the most Triple Crown events"..."Kristensen has won the 24 Hours of Le Mans more than any other driver with nine victories."
  • Might just be me, but it seems more logical to have the discussion about who has actually claimed the Triple Crown before discussing who has won the most constituent races.
  • Last sentence is too unwieldy. Punctuation exists.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: Have made changes to the list based on your suggestions EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Further comments:
    • The Kristensen repetition is still present. If anything, the changes have made the section more unclear. Specifically, I am looking for sentences that flow smoothly into each other, rather than just bouncing along. How about: "Tom Kristensen has won the most Triple Crown races with nine victories, all at Le Mans; Hill claimed two fewer in total, including five wins at Monaco. Ayrton Senna won six Triple Crown events, all at Monaco, placing him alongside Jacky Ickx in joint-third overall. With four victories each, Hélio Castroneves, A. J. Foyt, Rick Mears and Al Unser hold the joint record for the most Indianapolis 500 wins."
  • Can a race really be said to "occur"?
  • Unsure why it is necessary to clarify the "first" 24h and the "inaugural" Monaco - that's what follow means.
  • Note that citation 5 specifically clarifies "contemporary F1 drivers".
  • Overall the prose quality of the lead needs to be improved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

    Implemented more of your suggestions into the list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

    • I disagree with including dedicated sentences for Kristensen and Senna, since the information is logically apparent from previous sentences. I have made a few edits, and the prose is looking much better.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

      Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Couple more:

• "calendar clash" is too informal. Perhaps "traditionally held on the same weekend"?
  • Maybe including the traditional dates would be helpful. Something like "As the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix are both traditionally held on the last weekend of May, it is impossible for modern drivers to enter all three Triple Crown events in the same year." In any case, the source says contemporary drivers "cannot" rather than "it is rare".
• Once done, I think I'm ready to support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit

• The Graham Hill sentence about him being the only driver to win the triple crown needs a reference when it's mentioned in the second paragraph.
• It used to be policy (as far as I can remember) to have links in boldface. I took a look around on the MOS and this mainly seems to relate to the lead, but here it does suggest that bold links shouldn't be used. I'd consider using a colour instead, such as is used here here.

That's it from me. I also have a list that could do with a review here if you've got the time :) NapHit (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• @NapHit: Done on both points EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Have to admit, I don't quite understand the interest in a grouping of races that only one person has ever won, but if it's a thing in motorsport then I guess it's a thing. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:01, 31 December 2022 (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, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [3].

---

List of international goals scored by Henrikh Mkhitaryan

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because its a rather small and simple list, any issues that exist in the list would probably be very systematic and quick to fix. Miki only scored 32 goals for the national team at a time for which game references were simple to find and that the RSSSF had a pretty good outline of all his goals and competitions. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "who has represented the Armenia national football team as a forward from his debut in 2007 to his international retirement in 2022" => "who represented the Armenia national football team as a forward from his debut in 2007 until his international retirement in 2022"
• "A ten-time Armenian Footballer of the Year" - source?
• "Mkhitaryan has also netted twice" => "Mkhitaryan also netted twice"
• "He has scored the most times" => "He scored the most times"
• Image caption: "He has scored 32 goals in 95 caps for Armenia." = "He scored 32 goals in 95 caps for Armenia."
• "have come in friendlies." => "came in friendlies."
• "Mkhitaryan had never played in the FIFA World Cup" => "Mkhitaryan never played in the FIFA World Cup"
• "As of match played 14 November 2021" (in two places) - don't think this is needed given that he is retired
• As it's a sortable table, venues and competitions should be linked on every usage, not just the first
• There's no key to the colours
• The external link is used as a ref so it doesn't need to be also listed as an xlink
• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  All addressed, thank you @ChrisTheDude. Idiosincrático (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Phikia (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from EnthusiastWorld37

• "Henrikh Mkhitaryan is an Armenian professional footballer who represented the Armenia national football team as a forward from his debut in 2007 until his international retirement in 2022." - this sentence should ideally be referenced to a reliable source to verify its accuracy.
• "He made his debut for Armenia in a 1–1 draw against Panama on 14 January 2007," - needs a citation for verification purposes
• All of the sources could do with archiving for preservation against future link rot
• The Associated Press in the agency field of reference 21 should be wikilinked for consistency

That's all I have EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

All addressed, thank you @EnthusiastWorld37. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support - EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 17:43, 31 December 2022 (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, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [4].

---

List of FIFA World Cup winning managers

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Done a bit of work on this, taking into consideration the last failed nom, and now think it's ready for another go. With the World Cup in a couple of months, would be nice to get this one over the line by then. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikilink the teams in the first paragraph (but not on subsequent mentions in the lead)
• Wikilink the term manager
• Wikilink Bilardo in the lead
• "Helmut Schön, who led West Germany" - he's already been mentioned, so just use surname this time
• 1974 FIFA World Cup is overlinked
• "Mario Zagallo and César Luis Menotti were also in their 30s" - surname only for Zagallo here and on the next mention
• "Franz Beckenbauer (as a player in 1974, as a manager in 1990)" - surname only here
• There's an error in ref 7
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments @ChrisTheDude:, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- Idiosincrático (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

• Looks like there are a few updates to citations needed now we have a 2022 entry. (Most obviously, for the table of winners).
• Also, some of the other sources don't cover the most recent entries, e.g. a 2010 ref is used for oldest/youngest winners.
• Text seems fine. I'm happy to do a source and/or image review after citations are updated.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @BennyOnTheLoose:, I've updated the refs, let me know if I've missed any. I've tried to replace the older refs that you mentioned too, specifically the youngest and oldest winners. I also had to add a specific ref on Scaloni winning, as the RSSSf link hasn't been updated yet. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks for making the updates. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review

• I wasn't familiar with rsssf.com but it seems fine per the discussion at RSN.
• There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard at Perennial Sources, so ideally this should be replaced with a different source.
• Other sources look reliable.
• I did spot checks for a few sources: IMF; 2022 rsssf.com; Evans in The Guardian; Butler in The Guardian; Jolly in The Independent. No issues.
• Need a newer source than Owsianski & DiMaggio (16 August 2018) for the information it seeks to support ("Five other managers finished as winners once and runners-up once ... Five other managers finished as winners once and runners-up once ... Didier Deschamps (winner in 2018, runner-up in 2022))
• Unless you convince me otherwise, I think we also need a more recent source than 2018/2019 for:

• "Carlos Alberto Parreira holds the record for attending the most FIFA World Cup final tournaments as manager with six appearances while managing five different national teams."
• "Schön, who led West Germany to victory in the 1974 World Cup, has managed the most matches in the tournament at 25, and won a record 16 matches during his spell as West Germany from 1966 to the 1978 FIFA World Cup."
• "Three men have won the tournament both as a player and as a manager.."

That's all on sources from me; I'm happy for any other editors to comment. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the sources @BennyOnTheLoose:, I've gone through and made all the changes you suggested. I wasn't sure whether I was going to find more recent sources for some of the above, but I found quite a few. For some of them. NapHit (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• The new sources appear to be OK. I formatted one ISBN for consistency. There's a slight inconsistency in the non-English-language sources - two have the language specified but La Repubblica doesn't. I'd suggest also adding the trans-title parameter for these three sources, although I can't confirm that it's a requirement. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• I replaced the La Reppublica source with one from the BBC and added the two translated titles as suggested. Thanks again, @BennyOnTheLoose:. NapHit (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are PD or CC.
• The ALT text is mostly OK, but I think "Zagallo (cropped) with Parreira and president Lula" should be amended to better reflect the content of the cropped image used.
• Images are relevant and have suitable captions. Positioning is fine. (I sometimes suggest adding the date taken to image captions but I don't think it's required here.)

That's all on sources from me; I'm happy for any other editors to comment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Benny, I've edited the alt text and responded above about the sources. Many thanks and merry Christmas! NapHit (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from EnthusiastWorld37

• "runners-up in 1966" - pretty certain the wording in bold should be spelt runner-up
• "during his spell as West Germany from 1966" - as West Germany manager
• Wikilink the term captain to Captain (association football)
• "of their respective team" - teams
• "World Cup 1930–2018 — Info on Coaches" - this reference title should be changed to 2022 since it has been updated

That's all the comments I have on this neatly presented list 16:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments @EnthusiastWorld37:, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment

• The only line that sticks out for me is "Carlos Alberto Parreira holds the record for attending the most FIFA World Cup final tournaments as manager." I think it would be better to drop the word "attending", which makes it sound like he may have been a guest at some of them. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment @Harper J. Cole:, I've reworded that sentence. NapHit (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support

Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 17:43, 31 December 2022 (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, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [5].

---

List of birds of Tuvalu

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the second nomination of this list for FLC. I had to abandon the last nom because I didn't really have much time to edit WP the last couple of months, but hopefully I'll be able to see this through this time. I've incorporated suggestions from last time into the article, so pinging Pseud 14 and The Rambling Man, who reviewed this during the last FLC. AryKun (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "from 2,500–3,500 mm": Is that right? A previous reviewer mentioned that it might average 3500 cm. I couldn't check because the source link to the PDF seems to be dead for me.
  • The link is working for me, but the relevant part of the article says "Annual rainfall ranges from 2500 mm in the northern islands to 3500 mm in the south, mostly occuring as heavy showers". AryKun (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Thx for checking on it. FWIW, the link (to a Fiji url) still isn't coming up for me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. I normally look at the sources at this point, but the dead link (above) is a concern. I'll come back and take another look after the source review has been completed.
• 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 for now, but I'll come back and take another look after the source review. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing, great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

MeegsC

• There's a dotted underline under "genera", but nothing (other than a question mark) appears if you hover over it. What's supposed to happen?
  • The one that I added in this edit says "plural of genus" when I hover. Possibly Template:tooltip is malfunctioning for your machine, or possibly you've disabled tooltips in some preference or gadget. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the tooltip shows up for me too, maybe it's an issue on your device.
• "Thirteen of these species breed on Tuvalu, nine of which are seabirds." There's a misplaced clause here. Grammatically, it should be "Thirteen of these species, nine of which are seabirds, breed on Tuvalu."
  • Changed.
• "species of shorebird" but "species of seabirds"? Either both should be plural or neither should.
  • Changed both to singular.
• You say some species are "migratory visitors", but they're marked as A, which indicates accidental. These don't mean the same thing; perhaps "accidental visitors" or "occasional visitors" or "migratory overshoots" or some such to indicate they're not regular migrants?
  • The source says "The migrant species include eight species of shorebird, nine further species of seabirds, as well as the Mallard and the Long-taild Cuckoo.", which seems to say that mallards are a visiting species, if only occasionally. The accidental tag later on is there because Avibase uses it, so I'm not sure which source you would go with.
• The second paragraph uses "the birds of Tuvalu" (or "in Tuvalu" or "on Tuvalu") a lot. Maybe vary the structure by saying "on (or in or of) the islands" instead once or twice?
  • Reworded.
• It would be great if this list said something about these birds other than that they're sometimes present on the island. The family introductory bits talk about species not even found on the island (Roadrunners? Snowcocks?!) but you don't tell us whether the listed species common and widespread, or only found in specific areas. Are the breeders colonial? Only found in the native forests? Widespread on the coasts? Cliff dwellers? It would sure be more useful with more information.

MeegsC (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• • The introductions are meant primarily as a descriptions of those families. I've tried to add specific information about species in those families when it's available, but except for the buff-banded rail, none of the species have particularly interesting aspects to their biogeographies.

• MeegsC, I've replied to your comments. AryKun (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• MeegsC, reminder in case you've forgotten about this. AryKun (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. The list certainly matches other bird lists that are currently rated FL. Though I'll repeat that right now, other than the information that "this bird has been found in the country at least once", there isn't really anything said about their numbers, where and when they're found, etc. And I guess I question how useful that really is. MeegsC (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 17:43, 31 December 2022 (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, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [6].

---

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Limited Release

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This is my 6th GLAAD Media Award-related list, and I'm nominating it because I believe it has reached the same status as the previous ones and has the potential to become a featured list. The list proved to be somewhat tricky to make. By 1997, GLAAD has started separating films into the wide and limited categories, and the names have stayed the same since. However, prior to this point, the was the Outstanding Film award, and Vito Russo Film Award. So, the question was, which movie went to which category? To make a long story short, the current list is structured based on a Letterboxd playlist created by GLAAD itself. If this list becomes a featured one, them most film-related GLAAD Media Award categories will be complete. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "that encourages media outlets to submit programs for consideration" - films, surely?
• Refs are not in numeric order in some cases
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • God, I must have copypasted the section from one of the TV articles and forgot to change it. Twice. I noticed the same error also present in the Wide Release page. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out. Fixed that and put the refs in numeric order. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I do it all the time too :-) Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Umimmak

I am not super well versed in FLC criteria, consider these just passing comments.

• It is one of several categories of the annual GLAAD Media Awards, which are presented by GLAAD—an American non-governmental media monitoring organization founded in 1985, formerly called the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation—at ceremonies in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco between March and June. this is a very syntactically complex sentence. Right now your first paragraph is two sentences, but this second sentence is composed of four nesting clauses. I wonder if all of the information here needs to be in a single sentence?
  • I have made some changes. Let me know if you think it's better this way. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• You have a source for ceremonies being held in NYC, LA, and SF -- this is not quite the same as having |venue=Varies? (I see that the venue does vary, but this is uncited). I'm also noticing on GLAAD Media Award that apparently it hasn't been in San Francisco since 2013, and also in past years it was sometimes held in other cites as well such as Washington DC, and Miami.
  • I decided to remove the "Venue" parameter, as there are way too many cities across various years. I've also removed San Francisco for the reasons you mentioned. From what I've seen, the only cities where the GLAAD Media Awards have been held practically every year are New York City and Los Angeles, so I think it's best to include only those two. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• The award was first given as the Vito Russo Film Award in 1994 to The Wedding Banquet, distributed by The Samuel Goldwyn Company, being a separate category from Outstanding Studio Film, and would be given a second time in 1996 to The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love. again you really like putting a ton of clauses in a single sentence; I feel this could be two or three separate sentences and possibly read more clearly.
  • Done.
• the Vito Russo Film Award ... would be given a second time in 1996 and At the 7th GLAAD Media Awards in 1996 ... with the award being retitled to Outstanding Independent Film wait so which was it?
  • Rereading it, I also got a little confused; lol. I changed a few things to hopefully make it clearer. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• The award may be accepted by any of the film's producers, directors, writers, or actors. this is maybe outside the scope of a Wikipedia article but the lead has this sentence and this led me to expect information about who accepted on behalf of each movie. Do we have any indication of which category of people is most typical? Do they give any kind of acceptance speech in the ceremony?
  • No, the sources don't really mention who accepted the award. I tried looking for this year's ceremony to include a picture, but no luck. Also, listing every single person who accepted to award for a film would be overkill. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Call for Entries why is this capitalized? GLAAD's website capitlizes it, but I'm not sure that the voice of Wikipedia need to treat this as a proper noun?
  • Done.
• Winners are determined your source provides some sense of scale of how many voters there are: Hundreds of GLAAD Media Awards voters, this might be something worth mentioning?
  • I've looked at other articles for awards, and none of them describe the amount of voters, which makes sense as every year their scale might increase / decrease. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Since its inception, consider {{as of}} for statements like this which are only accurate to a specific date.
  • Done.
• I see GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Wide Release also just lists the film and distributor... but at least to me as a reader it seems unclear why only the distributor is listed over the producers, screenwriter, director? I guess that's just how Variety does it.
  • I can understand the confusion. Given that these awards have to do with the scope of a film's release, what matters to GLAAD is the distributor. Whether the film received a wide or limited release. Also, I looked at things like the Oscar for Best Picture, and there too, only the studios are listed, rather than directors. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Initially, GLAAD only announced the winners during press releases, with the awards being given during the ceremonies so they weren't in press releases or they just didn't have a set of nominees in general? I'm not sure if this is "I couldn't find the information in press releases". Maybe press releases didn't have nominees but were there still nominees invited to the ceremony? Were they announced there?
  • Made some changes to make it more understandable.
• For the 7th GLAAD Media Awards in 1996, GLAAD made the list of nominees of two categories publicly available, announcing the winner at a latter date. Given that neither of those categories is the topic of this list, I'm not sure this is relevant? I think at the very least it'd be nice to clarify that "Outstanding Independent Film" was not one of those two categories.
• Part of me wonders if it might be worth repeating the history of the award names down here? Maybe having separate headings for "Vito Russo Film Award", "Outstanding Independent Film", and "GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Limited Release"? Or some kind of note? Because right now that's only in the lead but isn't actually anywhere in the section for the award.
• Actually now I'm looking into it plenty of things have won the Vito Russo Film Award including the film Longtime Companion the documentary The Celluloid Closet and the TV serial Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit. With that bolded in the lead, the reader expect this to be a complete article for that award as well, it seems like that award was given to various categories, not just to films? I feel this can be cleared up more. In any event that “second” seems to need to be qualified w.r.t. the 1996 ceremony.
  • Yeah, the Vito Russo Film Award was kind of weird, having been given to films, documentaries, and TV movies / miniseries. From what I have found, this award was only given during the 1990s, and every film or whatnot that won is is nowadays recognized by GLAAD as falling into one of its other, current categories; such as Outstanding Film - Wide Release, or Outstanding Documentary. I don't think the award being bolded necessarily means people will think the page will discuss it in length, but if need be, I can simply unbold it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
• Is it worth wikilinking Distributor the first time it appears outside the lead (MOS:DUPLINK)?
  • Normally I'd agree with you, but since the only instances where the word appears outside the lead is in the brackets, words there are never wikilinked. At least, from the other lists I've seen. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Costa Brava per a film review ProQuest 1305515837, its distributor was DTK
  • Done. Thank you for that. I kept looking and couldn't find anything.
• 2009 why are two films highlighted in green and in bold but only one has a ‡?
  • Done. Thank you for pointing that out! :D
• Why are Casi Divas and Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? not redlinked but Costa Brava is? Do you think those two are less likely to eventually have Wikipedia articles?
  • You're right. I've removed the wikilins for Costa Brava.
• In general I wonder if you might want to make use of {{Cite press release}} or |type=Press release?
  • Changed the one which clarified they were (or resembled) press releases.
• WP:CITEVAR, I suppose, but I personally think it's overkill to have ISSNs for major publication, especially when you're not citing the print volume (if you were I'd expect pages, volume/issue numbers, etc., but you're citing the websites). It also feels overkill to me to include the publishers for major periodicals for things like Time, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, and it also feels overlinking / WP:SEAOFBLUE at times. I also think you don't need an access date for web citations if you also have an archive date? If nothing has changed since the archive date, then that's all you need; the access-date is more important when you don't already have a URL-archive or for websites which are less static.
  • I've never had any issue before, and don't think it's overkill. In fact, I was told to add the ISSN for periodicals. This is something I would leave as is for now, unless a plethora of editors state it should be changed.

Like I said I have no real experience with FLC, these are just some drive-by thoughts that I had while reading. Hope at least some of them are at least somewhat useful. Umimmak (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll respond more closely to updates later but just fyi: Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. Umimmak (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Umimmak: All right, I believe I've responded to almost everything. With some of the changes, I'm not sure if they're adequate, and with others, some discussion might still be necessary. Still, thank you for all your help, and I also removed to "Done" checkmarks to help with load times. :) --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay I'm looking though now. These are just minor prose suggestions. I kind of think your second paragraph could do a better job explaining things just by reordering. Beginning with The award was first given as the Vito Russo Film Award in 1994 is a bit confusing because the award didn't exist yet. I think something like "The award was first given under its present name for the 8th GLAAD Awards in 1997, however GLAAD includes two earlier films in this category as well", something like your last sentence, and making that be an introduction would I think just make the flow clearer. Right now the reader has to read a few sentences to understand what it means to be given as the Vito Russo Film Award.

I can see why some changes were necessary. I have reorganized things a little bit. Hopefully it reads better and makes more sense now. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDALTNAMES Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold:, given that there are Vito Russo Film Awards for categories other than Film – Limited Release, this doesn't really feel like an "alternative name", per se. The article sort of reads as if the "Vito Russo Film Award" was just what the award was for this category for the 5th GLAAD Award, but it's really more like its own thing, but one of the recipients of the Vito Russo Film Award was later recategorized as a win in this category as well. Hopefully this all makes sense.

Yeah, seeing as the Vito Russo Film Award was its own separate thing, rather than a true precursor to Outstanding Film – Limited Release, I have unboldened it and clarified that it won a Vito Russo Film Award. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Also on this topic, why is Outstanding Studio Film in bold? That's an entirely different award, with a different Wikipedia article?

True, it is a completely separate award. Unbolded it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

By contrast, in order for films created by and for LGBT audiences to be considered for nomination, they must be submitted after the call for entries. As a reader I was curious about this, the source provides an explanation, but I suppose this is getting perhaps too into the weeds; the explanation for why there's this contrast I suppose could go into the main article on the GLAAD Media Awards, but at least when I read this I was left with questions. Like I said though I'm not sure this needs to be addressed in detail here.

I remember having looked into this in the past, but didn't find much. GLAAD doesn't fully explain why media made by and for the LGBT community isn't monited as heavily as mainstream / straight media. My guess is that since GLAAD wishes to have a positive impact by highlighting good representation, it makes more sense for them to look out for media that are made for a mainstream audience and highlight any that have (good) queer representation. But that's probably something more suited to the page for the awards themselves, rather than the categories. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text I wonder if there are any sort of reliable sources talking about other such statistics or trends? Something other than just the most recent winner so it's not a sentence all by itself?

Merged the last paragraph into the previous one.

The text introduction to Winners and nomineess feels like a very convoluted way to say "GLAAD only began announcing nominees for all of its categories in 1997". I'm confused about the emphasis on press releases, it's not really about press releases in particular. And I maintain my earlier comment about the 7th GLAAD Awards being confusing, why is this mentioned if neither of those two categories was Outstanding Independent Film.

Removed references to this process.

Onto references. I think I'd prefer something other than https://www.glaad.org/support for your citation as to what the Shareholders Circle is. I'd also avoid having a specific dollar amount in the article, presumably this number has changed over time? All of your citations in the lead are to GLAAD itself; are there no independent sources talking about the awards? I'm not saying you can't also reference GLAAD, but it's curious there are no secondary sources about the award as a whole (versus winners of individual years).

I checked, and the amount is still the same regarding donations and joining the shareholders circle. I did try looking for secondary references, but the only ones that pop up are from GLAAD itself. Although I would like to use non-GLAAD sources, it's not exactly bad to use at least some primary sources on Wikipedia pages. And if by "secondary sources about the award as a whole" you mean a secondary source that describes everything the lead does, then I don't think we'll ever find it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

|url-status=live when you use archive links for websites that are still up, e.g., ref [21]

Fixed.

Do you need citations for things like movie distributor when that information is not in the reference for the winner/nominees?

Yeah... it's unfortunate that the oldest nominations don't have the distributors listed. I tried finding sources with the films and their distributors, but the only results were either the Wikipedia list or mirror links of it. From experience, the lack of information on such things for the older nominations hasn't been at issue at FLC. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, I don't really have much experience with FLCs, these are just my thoughts. Hope they make sense. Umimmak (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Umimmak: I have responded to all comments. Hopefully the revisions I've made are to your liking. And don't worry about not having much experience with FLCs; you've been doing great thus far. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: thanks, I think it reads a lot clearer. Just a possible suggestion, I see you entirely got rid of your paragraph about there not being nominees announced in 1994 and 1996, I wonder if your footnotes [b] and [c] might also benefit from saying there something to the effect of "GLAAD only announced winners, not nominees, this year." Also I'm sure you've looked and I realize this is a tough topic to find images for, but just for completeness I want to mention the criterion It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, and just wonder what types of images you considered. Some ideas off the top of my head: A venue for the award ceremony, a Los Angeles movie theater playing one of these films, a presenter, someone who works at GLAAD, a picture of an actual trophy (just realizing, I don't think lead actually mentions the trophy, is this worth noting?), etc. I realize it's always tough to find images for Wikipedia, and it might be that there are no suitable images but I just wanted to note this for the record. At some point I'll try to more thoroughly go through the references compared to overall impressions on formatting. Umimmak (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay a few notes on notes; other reviewers should note I'm not experienced enough to do a full "Source Review" again these are just things I'm noticing.

• [9] Title seems to be "Support GLAAD"
• I'm not quite sure what counts as a |type=Press release or not, but you should be consistent. For instance [10] and [11]
• [14] is from 2000, not 2020
• [19] and [20] seem to have some sort of encoding errors in their title; not sure you need to repeat that error in Wikipedia.
• [25] reads Bad Education (La Mala Educación) for Outstanding Film, -- is there a source saying it specifically won Outstanding Film – Limited Release? (I see you have a source saying it was nominated in that category, but when possible let's try to avoid WP:SYNTH)
• [35] reads Goslett's writing credits also include Little Ashes (which won a GLAAD Media Award), is there not a source specifically saying it won this category? (e.g., Gale A223150277 available through WP:LIBRARY)

Umimmak (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Followed through with the recommendations regarding the sources. Seeing as we're lucky enough with this list that GLAAD created an entire Letterboxd playlist, I decided to just use that for #25 and #35. As for the images, ideally I would like to include an image of the person(s) who accepted the award, but I have been unable to find any sources or videos discussing that. I know that the ceremony is on Hulu, but it isn't available in my country. Unless that becomes available information, it's probably best to leave it empty. I'll see about readding the section about nominations, but making a few changes. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this highlights video on YouTube also georestricted? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ruXT700GWI Umimmak (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really show anything about the individual categories; mostly some of the other special recognition categories. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah sorry I hadn't had the change to watch the whole thing. Strange there seemingly is no way to watch the whole 2022 awards; I have Hulu and don't see it there. Strange. Jim Parsons, Matt Bomer, and Robin de Jesús accepted on behalf of The Boys in the Band for the 32nd Awards if that helps: [7]. I also found an updated secondary source talking about eligibility requirements though so you don't have to use an archived version on GLAAD itself: [8]. Umimmak (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Shit, thank you for these sources. :D I can definitely use the second. The first is good to have, but with awards, you always try to place the most recent winner in the infobox; you know, due to the recency effect. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Umimmak: I readded the portion about the nominees; hopefully it's a bit more streamlined now. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Thanks, I think that's a lot clearer to the reader. I'm not really sure I have anything else to say! The new Deadline source says requirements were "updated", perhaps the specific changes could be made clear or when the current eligibility criteria came into effect? Not sure that's necessary though. I'm still noting my comments about the SEAOFBLUE in the citations, but will acquiesce per CITEVAR unless other editors bring it up. I'll hesitantly say Support, and I'm only hedging with "hesitantly" because this is my first time ever making a recommendation/!vote for a FLC so I'm not particularly confident in my own abilities to make an assessment, but I think it falls in line with other Featured Lists for GLAAD Media Awards. Umimmak (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47

• This is such a nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance, but I was wondering if it would be more beneficial to move the citation from this part, such as the numbers of screens, to the end of the sentence? It just reads and looks a little off to have a citation cut off the last three words of a sentence, especially when that citation placement is not 100% necessary (i.e. to clearly define a quote, etc.).

• Done.

• I am likely missing this information in the lead, but who does the award actually go to? I know there is the following part, may be accepted by any of the film's producers, directors, writers, or actors, but that reads to me like these individuals can accept the award at the ceremony. The list places an emphasis on the distributor so does it just go to the company as a whole? If so, is there a way to more clearly define that for readers?

• Based on info like here, in all categories, the award is given to a specific work, and a specific group of people can accept it. The only award given to a specific individual, rather than work, is the Music-related awards, which are given to the artists. Regarding the sentence, how about rewriting it like this: "The award is given to the film and may be accepted by any..."? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• That revision would clarify things in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Done.

• Do you think any of the films and/or distributors in the list that do not already have an article qualify for a red link (something that has enough notability to potentially get an article in the future)?

• @Aoba47: Out of the 3 films without pages, the only one that seems to have notability and potential for an article is Kanarie. A quick Google search shows there are a few articles about the film, unlike the other two. Of course, in theory, anything could have a Wikipedia article, so... As for the distribution companies, I don't have enough knowledge to judge if any of them is notable or not. Rather than placing red links everywhere, I'd rather leave them be. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• No worries. This is more of a clarification question than anything. I agree that it is best to leave red links to only subjects that you believe can have their own articles in the future. Thank you for addressing this matter for me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Is the author for Citation 29 the same Stephen M. Silverman as the one in the link? If so, he should be linked in the citation.

• Good question. To be honest... I don't know. Clicking on his name in the article doesn't bring up a biography or something that could help.

• I would say they are the same person. His profile on Penguin Random House confirms he did work for People. Aoba47 (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, yass queen. Thanks. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• For Citation 49, I would specify E! News as the website/work since other citations clearly define the website/work and publication.

• Done.

I hope these comments are helpful. I could not find much to comment on for my review, and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. I hope you have a wonderful holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like verything has been addressed. I support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any input for my current FAC although I completely understand if you do not have the time or the interest since it is a busy time of the year. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1958

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's my latest nomination from the history of Billboard's R&B charts. In this particular year two flash-in-the-pan acts each reached number one with their only hit ever, and Elvis gained his last R&B chart-topper before his music drifted off in other directions..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

• All of the citations come from reliable, high-quality sources, particularly in the context a music list, and they are all structured appropriately.
• It is not a requirement for a FL, but I would still encourage archiving web citations, such as Citation 10, to avoid any headaches with potential ink rot and death.
• Ron Wynn should be linked in Citation 9 and Richie Unterberger should be linked in Citation 3.
• I have done a brief spot-check and everything appears to be supported by the citations.

I hope that this review was helpful. I thought it would be nice to get the source review out of the way at the start. Once my relatively nitpick-y point about two author links in the citations is addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this source review. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything and for catching the second Unterberger instance that I had missed. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Support from PanagiotisZois

• The "The R&B Best Sellers in Stores chart ... top disk jockey shows in all key markets" sentence is a bit too long. I'd recommend splitting it into two sentences, with the first ending at "rhythm and blues records".
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Relating to the above, given that quite a few quotations pop up, it does make me wonder where they come from. Following through with the above sentence split, both of them should have a citation at the end of the sentence / quotation.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not much of a music meister, so excuse my ignorance. The last sentence in the first paragraph is a bit confusing to me. I understand that when it came to R&B songs, Billboard had to separate categories for most of the year. But then in October, they were merged into one; up to this point, everything is good. But the "which has been published continuously since that date, since 2005 under the title Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" is a bit confusing. Does this mean that the Hot R&B Sides chart is still be used by Billboard? If yes, then why is the reference to Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs important?
  • Yes, it means that the chart which was launched in late 1958 continues to be published to this day. It has changed its name a number of times, though, so just saying "Billboard has published the Hot R&B Sides chart continuously since 1958" or similar would be inaccurate/confusing to readers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • OK, I get it now. I made a few changes to make the sentence easier to follow. Let me know if you have any issues with the changes. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Another question, what is "three different acts had recordings of the same track in the upper reaches of the charts at the same time" referring to?
  • It means that there were versions of the track "Raunchy" by three different artists in the chart all at the same time. This is unusual -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but on the table, I only see two version of "Raunchy"; by Ernie Freeman and Bill Justis. When it says upper reaches, does that mean within the top 5 range, and not necessarily number 1? That besides these two versions, there was a third one by a different artist? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
      • @PanagiotisZois: I've clarified this point - the third version out at the same time was a pop hit rather than R&B -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
        • All right, things are becoming clearer. I did some looking into "Raunchy", and I'm guessing the third version was from Bill Justis. I have a suggestion on how that sentence can be reworded. You revert the sentence to how it was before, and either in a separate clause with a semicolon or as a note, you clarify that the third recording of the track - "Raunchy" - topped in the pop chart and was sung by Justis. Once that is done, I can support this candidacy. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
          • @PanagiotisZois: Upon further consideration, as the third version wasn't an R&B hit, I just removed the reference altogether -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
• Not exactly a requirement, but Elvis' epithet should probably go after his real name.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the big questions there; I'm not all that familiar with music and how Billboard works. I'm hoping it will be helpful for the article to have a layman's opinion, so that it can become more accessible. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: - thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

All right, now that my comments have been addressed, I can offer my support to this FLC. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "The Champs" should sort under "C", according to the "defaultsort" of that article (and you do sort it under "C" in the third column, but not the fifth). I don't have a position on whether "The Music of David Seville" should sort under M or S.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I don't have any suggestions on prose. Good job. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks - can't believe I missed the sortkey for that second use of "The Champs" considering it's literally one centimetre below the one I did do right...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    • It's okay ... it's getting harder and harder to find something to do in these lists. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review pass, and support from, BennyOnTheLoose

• Pass for image review. All images are relevant, have suitable licences and alt text. Positioning and captions are fine. The image of the Champs isn't great quality, but seems acceptable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support - up to the usual high standard for this series of lists. A script suggests that AllMusic should be listed as "work" rather than "publisher" in citations, but I see that in other articles it's a "work" and I don't think this has any impact on readers or editors either way. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC) [10].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Laos

Nominator(s): Tone 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I am continuing the series of WHS lists with Laos, now that Thailand and Cambodia have been promoted. Laos has 3 WHS, which is somewhat on the lower limit (I tend not to nominate countries with one or two sites), but otherwise the list follows the standard style and is complete. Tone 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Map caption doesn't need a full stop
• "became the royal and religious seat of the French protectorate of Laos between 1893 and 1946" => "was the royal and religious seat of the French protectorate of Laos between 1893 and 1946"
• "upon moving the capital of the Lan Xang kingdom to Vientiane" - "after he moved the capital of the Lan Xang kingdom to Vientiane" might read better
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! Tone 20:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support; this looks great. I'm sure it's addressed somewhere, but would it be worth explaining what "bis" means in 479bis? Spangineer^ws (háblame) 22:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! bis refers to a boundary modification or extension, as well as ter and quater with further extensions. Thanks for noticing, I usually mention this in text but apparently missed it here. Added now. Tone 06:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Apart from whether the {{clear}} template before the TOC is necessary, I don't see anything that would prevent me from Supporting this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! The clear template is there in order to separate the WHS table from the intro, because the intro is rather short and the map is vertical - it looks ugly on smaller screens. Tone 16:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:23, 20 December 2022 (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, 21 December 2022 (UTC) [11].

---

List of prime ministers of Australia

Nominator(s): JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have expanded and improved on the lead section, added citations for much of it, and moved around sentences. Australia is one of the few prominent countries whose list of leaders is not featured, so I am taking it here. Please ping me if you have any queries or requests. Thanks, JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead looks weird with the image at the left and the TOC forced to the upper right. Any reason for this?

The TOC was in the right when it started working on it, so I didn't change that. I have fixed that.

OK, now the TOC is being forced into the text of the lead, causing some sandwiching issues - why not just let it sit where it would go naturally? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have fixed that. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• "however the Prime Minister is still appointed by the Governor-General [....] which empowers the governor-general" - inconsistent capitalisation

Fixed.

• So the PM chooses the G-G, who appoints the PM who chose him? Have I understood that correctly?

@ChrisTheDude: Drive-by reply. I think they follow a similar system as the UK so the PM is appointed by the Queen (or in this case her representative the Governor General) if they command the support of parliament. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of ministers. They don't have a fixed term but generally serve for about 5 years, the current one was nominated by the previous PM Scott Morrison. Cowlibob (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, but at present the wording reads like the Governor-General appoints the PM, who then selects the Governor-General who appointed them in the first place. Does that make sense? Is there a way to re-word to avoid this suggestion of a paradox.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure as what to do. To make it clear to you, the Queen technically selects the Governor-General, however the Prime Minister actually selects them and sends that to the Queen. I don't know how to make it clearer in the article, perhaps someone can give a suggestion? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Maybe the following suggestion with supporting refs of course. "The role of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution of Australia, however the Prime Minister is still appointed by the Governor-General who under Section 64 of the constitution has the executive power to appoint ministers of state. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen of Australia based on the advice of the Prime Minister. They do not have a fixed term but generally serve for five years." Cowlibob (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Great way to put it. Inserted into article with an extra citation for the last part. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• "however, of those who have served as the nation's prime minister, three died in office" - I think all the words between the commas here are redundant

Fixed, that was a result of moving sentences around to fit better.

• "six resigned following leadership spills (John Gorton, Bob Hawke, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, and Malcolm Turnbull)" - Hawke and Rudd are randomly not linked here (although I have now noticed that both are linked the second time they are mentioned

Not sure what happened there, fixed.

• "(Joseph Cook in 1914, Gough Whitlam in 1975, whose dismissal caused a constitutional crisis, and Malcolm Fraser in 1983)" - Whitlam randomly not linked

Fixed.

• All the people who are mentioned multiple times in the lead should probably just be referred to by their surname on the second mention per MOS:SURNAME

Fixed.

• "The prime ministership of Frank Forde, who was Prime Minister for 8 days in 1945" => "The prime ministership of Frank Forde, who was Prime Minister for eight days in 1945"
• The table says he served for seven days, not eight

Fixed.

• Source for note a?

Fixed.

• Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your feedback; all fixed! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I think I've fixed all of your suggestions, if you have anything else, please let me know. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• The photo of the Lodge is low quality and a bad crop, can we find another? Maybe one of multiple prime ministers together GeebaKhap (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  @GeebaKhap: Got a better quality image from the same source and updated the image. I don't know why it was cropped in that way, but that is fixed now. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The forced with "width:100%" in the table isn't necessary and adds white space, including around the portraits.

That was how it was when I started working, reduced to 60%.

• "with thirty-one people serving in the position since the office was created in 1901" is weird to have as a subordinate clause; just have it as its own sentence.

Done.

• Replace however with but in the second sentence (currently a comma splice)

Done.

• "the length of time a Parliament serves for" may be better as "the length of time a Parliament is elected for"

Done.

• The second paragraph is a bit weird in that it's worded to give all the exceptions to when PMs didn't serve for three years. This misses Deacon's first term of 216 days, Watson's 113 day term, Reid, Deakon's second, Hughes, Bruce, Scullin, and others whose terms are also not multiples of three years. I think it'd be better to present the reasons for leaving on their own.

I added a group for the first few, the others either happened due to being the winner or loser in a spill or had other weird exits happen that don't fit in with anything else. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• The non-consecutive terms are irrelevant to the current officeholder; why are these statements combined with a semicolon?

Done.

• It says Menzies served two terms, but didn't he serve eight, even if not consecutive?

Reworded to say 'over two non-consecutive periods'.

• Columns need to be made sortable

Done.

• Please avoid WP:SMALLTEXT. There's no need to shrink the dates or ministries.

@Reywas92: There are quite a few examples of smalltext on the page. Should just the dates and ministries be enlarged or the electorates as well? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I've removed all of the smalltext, except in a few places where it should be kept. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office should be redirected/merged here as unnecessary once this is sortable. List of prime ministers of Australia (graphical) could probably also be merged.

Reywas92^Talk 22:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Sent the former to AFD, and proposed a merger for the latter. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

AFD has closed as keep. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Done some of them, will do a bit more later. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

All done, as far as I can tell. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

Done. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You're mostly good here, with the !scope=col in each header cell, but if the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.

Done. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | align="center" |Sir [[Edmund Barton]] becomes !scope=row align="center" |Sir [[Edmund Barton]], and you'll need to make that cell be on its own line in the wikicode (because of the !). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Normally the first cell of each row is the "header", but the way you split Billy Hughes into three rows makes that dicey.

@PresN: However I am doing is not working, diff [12]. Can you possibly have a look and tell me what I'm doing incorrectly. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Like this. --PresN 12:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't usually deal with colors, but some of these background color/text color are not accessible- the white on fluorescent green is particularly unreadable, but the white on light blue for the Fusion Liberal Party is also no good. [13] says that just flipping the text to black, if you must have that color green and pale blue, would be fine.

Done. I've left the colours as they are besides the text, as those colours are defined in a template and are used for the parties in other locations. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Also, consider doing what List of presidents of the United States did for this issue, and make the colors be a bar inside of the "party" column instead of a background to the first "number" cell; this would also let you make the first cell of each row be the row header.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from AK

• Link governor-general.
• "full length of their unless they lose the majority" → Full length of their what?
• Lots of duplinks in the lead (House of Representatives, Deakin, Fisher)
• "the Guardian" in the refs should have "The" capitalized.
• The 44th Parliament now has an article and should be linked.
• Should the publishers be Museum of Australian Democracy in place of apm-origin.moadoph.gov.au and Parliamentary Education Office instead of peo.gov.au.?
• That's all I got. AryKun (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  @AryKun: All done! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, support on the basis of prose from me. AryKun (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

This list has been sitting here too long without sufficient reviews; I'm going to review it myself and the close the nomination. I found two points of concern: a recent edit undid some of the above citation changes; I've reverted. The accessibility changes were also undone... by the same editor, actually. What a hassle. I've reverted that as well. Other than that, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:22, 20 December 2022 (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, 21 December 2022 (UTC) [14].

---

List of international goals scored by Aleksandar Mitrović

Nominator(s): Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This is my first FL nomination so go easy on me. I am nominating this article because it is well-written and reliably sourced throughout, and I think it meets the FL criteria. I'd be happy to address all comments and concerns. Nitpick away! Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead uses his surname a lot (like, in every sentence). I realise he is the subject of the article, but could you vary the language a bit? Even if it's only replacing some of them with "he"?
• "in what was his third international appearance" - unsourced
• "which ultimately ended in 1–2 loss" => "which ultimately ended in a 2–1 defeat"
• "With six goals, Mitrović finished as the top-scorer" - there is no hyphen in "top scorer"
• "Mitrović spearheaded Serbia's promotion to Group A [....] that resulted in Serbia being promoted to League A for the first time" - are "Group A" and "League A" the same thing?
• "a record 14 goals in the UEFA Nations League." - is this just a Serbian record or an all-time record?
• Table needs a note to explain the "score" column
• ....and also one to say that Serbia's score is shown first in each case
• As this is a sortable table, everything (stadia, competition) needs to be linked every time it appears, not just the first
• What's sourcing the "cap" column? Ref 13 does not confirm that it was his third cap, for example
• Hat-tricks column is pointless as it just duplicates content from the table above, and users can easily see from that table when he scored three times in a match
• Footnotes should probably go before See also
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your input. I have made some adjustments based on your comments. Let me know what you think. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

One point - I said "Footnotes should probably go before See also", but you've left them after that section and made them a sub-section of references? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: MOS:NOTES states that notes and references should appear after See also sections. In this case, notes include explanatory footnotes. Making them a sub-section in this case was a personal decision since I felt this part of the article was becoming too cluttered. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. In that case support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support: looks good -- Idiosincrático (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Mitro Gooool list looks very good ! Боки ✉ 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that some of the reviews are a bit sparse, normally I'd let this one sit for a bit longer, but after reviewing it I'm good to promote. Source review passed as well. --PresN 18:23, 20 December 2022 (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, 21 December 2022 (UTC) [15].

---

List of commelinid family names with etymologies

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because ... I could really use the feedback on this major undertaking. I never know what people are going to want to talk about most, so I'll keep this intro short until I get a better sense of what the big issues are (if any), then I'll add that discussion to the intro. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Almost forgot: thanks to Jts1882 for creating both of the cladograms. - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Oops ... a reviewer didn't like the cladograms for this particular list (they'd prefer a simpler format), so the cladograms are now gone. I'm open to taking another look at this issue anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, now I know what I want to add to this intro. It hasn't escaped my attention that some readers will look at this list and say "I don't understand ... this appears to be a list that's trying to describe some plants, but those are the most incomplete plant descriptions I've ever seen. What's the point?" I'm not wedded to these descriptions ... we could do a little more ... but:

1. I tried several times to write about leaves and flowers, but these tend to vary a lot within any large family. It's like saying "Be on the lookout for a white or black male, short or tall, with dreadlocks or bald". It's easier to describe a subfamily, a tribe or a genus ... but that would be more appropriate in a different list, maybe one that has a separate row for each tribe. I look forward to collaborating on that some day.
2. Many of Wikipedia's science-y articles are a bit overwhelming to people who are intelligent and interested in the material, but lack the necessary background. This is what attracted me to WP:FLC many years ago ... I saw a lot of lists that served very nicely as readable introductions to a subject, without sacrificing accuracy, dumbing the subject down or talking down to people. My hope is that this list series will eventually succeed in some of the same ways. We'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Quick note: I've changed the name of the next list to List of lilioid monocot family names with etymologies, and proposed a similar name change for the alismatids ... if people are on board with both of those, then after this FLC concludes, I'll be changing the name of this list to List of commelinid family names with etymologies. Thoughts are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm on board with it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• My only comment is that there's a lot of duplicate links on non-woody, bracts, etc. As this isn't a sortable list, I don't think the terms need to be linked every time....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. The Notes column isn't sortable, but all the other columns are ... so wouldn't that move the rows up and down, which would require adding links to each row? - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    • D'oh - I hadn't noticed that, my apologies. In that case support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility comment

I don't have an accessibility concerns about the table, but I do have one about the cladograms: the orange text (which to be fair I just added, since you had it with the alismatids highlighted in green instead of this clade) is not accessible against a white background. I checked darkorange as well and it isn't much better; I think you need to switch to darkred or another dark color for it to be parseable. I know you have this cladogram in a few different articles/lists, so I'll leave it up to you which color to switch to. --PresN 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I went with basic black. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Eewilson input

Good start! First round thoughts in no particular order:

• Don't wikilink section headers; referring to Cladograms which is Wikilinked.
  • Removed, per your request below. - Dank (push to talk)
• Make the "sentences" before each cladogram actual sentences. Currently, they are: [see what I did there?]
  • Removed.
• I think lists work best when they are simple, consistent, and the reader knows what to expect and where to expect it. I think a paragraph of prose within a list doesn't work; as a reader, that's not what I'm expecting from a list. I want a quick reference so I can either quickly compare what is in the list or an ability to quickly identify what article I am seeking. When I was working on the one I did last year, I had so much detail at first. It's laughable how long it took to load in my sandbox. More ideas on how to keep important items in the list but not make readers' eyes gloss over in a bit.
  • I'm not sure I follow ... most Featured Lists include paragraphs. But I just created an extra column and moved distribution info out of Notes and into that new column, so there's that. Per feedback in the previous list in this series, I moved the etymology information into the Notes column; I can give details if you want them.
• Look at it in the app on a phone, particularly one like an iPhone 8 with a smaller screen. Use portrait mode, not landscape. The image column is not what you want it to be and it looks sloppy.
• This may be a shortcoming of the app, the app and {{CSS image crop}} not playing well together, an inability of {{CSS image crop}} to deal with the squished column rendered on the small screen, or something else. You may have to work around it or even use something other than {{CSS image crop}}. I don't know.
  • Thanks much, I had missed that it wasn't working on smart phones. I've increased the "min-width", and the images now display correctly on my iPhone and in small windows on my laptop, in both mobile view and desktop view. Let me know if it's not working for you.
• Regarding images in a table, I think the best look is to have the images all the same height and width. The second best is the same width even if heights are different, but because they are in one column, that can look messy both in a browser and in the app, as mentioned.
  • I don't think I follow ... all the images in the table should be the same width, 120px. Are they not?
• Possibly separate the images into two columns.
  • I did that initially in the first list in the series and had to go back and change it; it failed miserably on smart phones and in smaller windows.
• Possibly have only one image, which might be the best option.
  • That's pretty much the opposite of the advice I've gotten so far. When possible, the left images focus on the flowers, and the right images focus on habit and habitat. Almost none of the images do a good job of displaying everything.
• It took me too long to figure out what the column "Genera for the order and family" is telling me. Three facts are cramped into one column: the order the family is in, the total number of genera in that order, and the total number of genera in this family. I think "Order" would be a good column by itself, the number of genera in the order, while interesting, may be out of scope; the number of genera in the family is interesting and deserves its own little column. (If your columns are simple and your header is "Order", then "order" doesn't need to be in each row; another column "Number of genera" would not need anything but the number.)
  • Order column: done. I moved the number of genera to the first column.
• saving then will continue...

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Another thought on the number of genera in the order is it could be a maintenance and consistency issue between the order articles and the family list. Further, if the Order and Number of genera [in family] columns are broken up, each could be sortable.
  • See below.
• From "Notes" column, "Etymology", "Distribution and habitat" [brief], and [super short] "Description" could each be a column. "Notes" could include things like "One species, Syngonanthus nitens, is used in handicrafts."
  • See below.
• Nothing in the columns needs to be in a complete sentence, so articles and other nonessential words could be left out to save space.
• I didn't know there was a whole family of prayer plants!
• Add a Legend.
  • I should be finished with this in a few minutes.
• Add prose for the cladograms describing them (not in the form of an alt like for an image, but as if each cladogram were an article, if that makes sense). You could change the section to "Classification" because it ought to cover a bit more than the cladograms. They need an introduction. See List of Symphyotrichum species#Classification for one example, but I'm sure there are many other better examples.
  • Removed.
• Okay, that's all for now.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Move the cladograms before the list and below the Key/Legend.
  • Removed. Thanks for everything. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Longer replies to Elizabeth

• Shorter replies will appear in-line above as I do them.
• The big problem is that I can only make a small change to the table column format ... I don't think it's going to cause any problems to add one column, and I'll get to work on that now ... probably best would be a "distribution" column (but I'll have to test it). Adding more than one will cause an accessibility problem ... let me explain. PresN and I struggled with the formats for a while at User:Dank/Sandbox/9 and on his talk page. I need 120% zoom for my less-than-perfect vision ... a lot of people do. When you crowd in two images and lots of columns at 120%, and add the "min-width" parameters that will avoid significant problems with the display on smaller screens, it starts crowding the "notes" column to the point where you'll have a tall, thin notes column and lots and lots of white space, and usually the images start jumping around too. So, I think I probably won't need the Legends table ... that's a good suggestion when you have a lot of narrow columns, but I won't.
• I'd probably rather keep the cladograms after the table ... but it's your call. I'm a believer in not creating pages in article-space unless the pages serve an actual purpose. The purpose of this list is to make some botanical things easier to read for non-botanists. If the reader wants to wade through a sentence that begins "The orders of monocots based on molecular phylogenetic evidence according to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group IV", great, but this list is for readers who might not understand a single word in that sentence ... but who do understand things like flowers, leaves, species, genera, and basic geography, and who are willing to dig in and try to understand a bit more. So ... I can put the cladograms before the table, but if I do that, most of the explanation for what the cladograms mean will have to go into notes that follow the table. If you're on board with that, tell me, and I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Just skip it for now. Do the cladograms need to be in the list article? Wouldn’t they be more appropriate for the clade article (or others of your choosing)? I’m on my phone and preparing for sleep soon without plans to open my laptop again, so I can’t look at it well right now. But I wonder if they could just be moved out if you want to keep it simple. I do like the idea of making this available to a wide audience. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
    • If that's what you'd prefer, it's not a problem, I've removed them. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The purpose of a legend table would be to allow you to use abbreviated/shortened headers in the main table and give explanations in the legend Table. Number of genera could be called Genera but a legend and even tooltip could explain the detail of that column. This could make skinny columns. Also, consider just one image. The two take up valuable column space. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I need 133% in my browser, btw, so I can relate. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Heh, finally! When I discussed this at WT:FLC years ago people looked at me like "What is he on about?" All your suggestions sound sensible, btw ... I'm going to be conservative in my first set of edits (I don't want to keep redo-ing) then put the ball back in your court ... I'm really not sure about the legend, so it won't make the cut for the first set of edits, but if you still want it later on we can add it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

E replies

Image line up problem

I hear what you are saying about having two images, and it was immediately noticeable to me that the first one is intended to be a close-up of an inflorescence or related, and the other farther away/habit. On images, now I see what's happening and making it mess up (although the "why" is above my pay grade). I'll show it with bits of code that work and those that don't, and I'll explain what I see in the browser compared to the Wikipedia app. I think the fix is simple and may not change what the browser user sees.

Code for some that work... it just uses standard [[File:]].

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Costus pictus]]'' <br/>[[File:Costus_pictus_01.jpg|alt="Costus pictus"|120px|''Costus pictus''|left]] [[File:Costus_malortieanus_004.jpg|alt="Costus pictus"|''Costus pictus''|120px|right]]

and

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Dasypogon bromeliifolius]]''<br/>[[File:Dasypogonbromeliifolius11478493874 274a47fb41 o.jpg|120px|''Dasypogon bromeliifolius''|alt="Dasypogon bromeliifolius"|left]] [[File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 27452923429 b80d2f0332 o.jpg|120px|alt="Dasypogon bromeliifolius"|''Dasypogon bromeliifolius''|right]]

and

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Ecdeiocolea monostachya]]''<br/>[[File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya - Flickr - Kevin Thiele.jpg|120px|''Ecdeiocolea monostachya''|alt="Ecdeiocolea monostachya"|left]] [[File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya - Flickr - Kevin Thiele (1).jpg|120px|alt="Ecdeiocolea monostachya"|''Ecdeiocolea monostachya''|right]]

and so on all work fine. What they show in the app on my iPhone 8 in that column is species name with link, then below that the first image with caption (which shows up as a tooltip in a browser on my MacBook Pro – I use Firefox), then below that the second image with caption (same tooltip note for browser).

The ones using {{CSS image crop}} do not. Here is what happens, depending on which one uses that template.

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Areca catechu]]''<br/>
{{CSS image crop
|Image         = Betel tree.jpg
|bSize          = 150
|cWidth        = 120
|oLeft           = 20
|Location      = left
|Alt               = ''Areca catechu''
}}
[[File:Areca catechu 2.jpg|120px|alt="Areca catechu"|''Areca catechu''|right]]

and

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Bromelia pinguin]]''<br/>
{{CSS image crop
|Image         = Tem aspecto de tecido essa bromelia.jpg
|bSize          = 120
|cHeight        = 180
|oTop           = 0
|Location      = left
|Alt               = ''Bromelia pinguin''
}}
[[File:Bromelia pinguin.JPG|120px|alt="Bromelia pinguin"|''Bromelia pinguin''|right]]

for example, show the first images moved left about 50% and slightly higher, showing their "placeholder" boxes, which you can actually see. In dark or light mode, the "placeholder" box is gray. The whole thing is quite ugly, although a bit interesting.

If the second image uses {{CSS image crop}} rather than the first (I think there are only two that are like this), a similar thing occurs, but no "placeholder" box shows and the image is moved 50% to the right.

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Poa pratensis]]''<br/>[[File:20150515Poa pratensis4.jpg|120px|''Poa pratensis''|alt="Poa pratensis"|left]]
{{CSS image crop
|Image         = Poa pratensis (3883809159).jpg
|bSize          = 180
|cWidth        = 120
|oLeft           = 10
|Location      = right
|Alt               = ''Areca catechu''
}}

In all instances where {{CSS image crop}} is used, there is no caption to the image. The species name with Wikilink is still above the images, as designed.

My recommendation is to cease using {{CSS image crop}}. I don't know its purpose, so I could be off base here. (Minor note of the copy/paste error for Poa pratensis... the alt in the CSS image crop says Areca catechu.)

Will save for now and let you look at that. Not sure I'm going to do anymore tonight. I haven't had a chance to dig into your replies.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing {{CSS image crop}} fixed this problem in the app; replaced all with basic [[File:]] usages. I also discovered that while a browser will follow the left and right parameter instructions regardless of the location of the [[File:]] call in the code, the app (at least my verson) will not; within a table cell, it puts left on top and right on bottom if and only if the left [[File:]] call in the code comes before the right one! Weird. Found one that was backwards in the code (the bananas) and had to switch them. Weird app quirks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Found some free images of Thurnia sphaerocephala on iNat

Hey, Dank. I found some free images of Thurnia sphaerocephala on iNat. We don't currently have any (that I can see) for that species on Commons. You could use a couple for Thurniaceae instead of the other species if you wish (that's !not! a requirement for FL). If interested, I can upload them quite quickly. Assuming you'd want a bloom/inflorescence and plant/habitat. There are good photos of both with a Commons-compatible license. Let me know. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic, yes please! - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

They are up and in the Commons Category Thurnia. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Found some more free images on iNat

I have found Rapatea paludosa (flower and plant, and same size just like the Thurnia sphaerocephala ones you used), Costus pictus plant in the wild rather than a greenhouse, Areca catechu photos that you may want to peruse (the ones in the list are okay, but there may be some better ones), some really cool photos of a close up of the flower of Dasypogon bromeliifolius, possibly good photo of Ecdeiocolea monostachya in its habitat showing whole plant, can probably find a good image of Eriocaulon decangulare in its environment to replace the illustration if desired, an amazing set of Haemodorum corymbosum photos, can probably find a photo of Maranta arundinacea that is not a potted plant but is in the wild, possibly some portrait photos of Mayaca fluviatilis so they will be larger in the list, same of Strelitzia reginae, and hopefully same of Xyris gracilis. If interested, scream yes and I will work on these within the next day or so. I like to wastespend time looking for and uploading images when my brain gets fried. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Those are all good calls I think. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Image updates (I volunteer as tribute to do any adjustments to images as needed and as I suggest below, if you agree. Earlier, when I said images look best when they are the same size, with this list, the same size [as in perspective] per cell and portrait view will work best. Enjoy reading.)

• Areca catechu – Cropped flower image from 4000×3000 px to 3170×3000 px. A crop of width will make the image appear taller in the table cell. It was only being used in this article, so I did not make a new file with the crop. Had various new images, but they are all low resolution, so I cropped the current second image off horizontally into a new file File:Areca catechu 2 (cropped).jpg. This will make both Areca catechu images appear the same size. If this doesn't work for you or doesn't show what you wanted, I'm sure there are other options.
• Bromelia pinguin – Just some minor cropping here would suffice.
• Canna indica – just needs cropping
• Commelina communis – just needs cropping
• Costus pictus – uploaded and cropped File:Costus_pictus_135367696_(cropped).jpg to make it the same perspective as the close-up currently in the cell. It looks like it's the best free image available for this species which shows a wider angle view of the plant but not in a pot or greenhouse. Let me know what you think.
• Cyperus esculentus – just needs cropping
• Dasypogon bromeliifolius – Check these out: File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 28996254.jpg and File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 28998701.jpg.
• Ecdeiocolea monostachya – Well, I found this, and I may possibly be able to do some fancy editing to fade out the background just a bit so the plant shows up better. See what you think: File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya 217897442.jpg.
• Eriocaulon decangulare – Three new options for the whole plant/habitat image: File:Eriocaulon decangulare 153997821.jpg, File:Eriocaulon decangulare 212330978.jpg, and File:Eriocaulon decangulare 218930694.jpg. Chosen image could be adjusted/cropped as needed.
• Flagellaria indica – perfect; no uploads or suggested changes
• Haemodorum corymbosum – six new 2,048 × 2,048 images in the middle at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Haemodorum_corymbosum; should be able to get a couple of good ones out of that, and if they show up too small, minor cropping for a change to portrait perspective could be done.
• Hanguana malayana – not sure what to do here; the first image could be rotated 90 degrees into a new image, which I can do; I haven't sought a habitat/far away image yet.
• Heliconia psittacorum – just needs cropping
• Joinvillea ascendens – ... Not sure what do do here yet; could possibly crop in to the inflorescence of this image File:Joinvillea ascendens 2 (scott.zona).jpg (into a new file) so it would show better. What do you think?
• Juncus acutus – These two images are great. Some minor horizontal cropping on first image and vertical on second image may bring them to same size and enhanced viewing, with your input.
• Orchidantha fimbriata – There were only a few observations of this plant and none had free images. On this one, too, some minor horizontal cropping on first image and vertical on second image may bring them to same size and enhanced viewing, with your input.
• Maranta arundinacea – I found this but am not too pleased with it: File:Maranta arundinacea 637116.jpg.
• Mayaca fluviatilis – New File:Mayaca fluviatilis 153929932.jpg and rotate existing second image into a new portrait?
• Musa acuminata – perfect; no uploads or suggested changes
• Philydrum lanuginosum – File:Philydrum_lanuginosum_59076165.jpg new upload might work for second image.
• Poa pratensis – just needs cropping
• Pontederia cordata – just needs cropping
• Rapatea paludosa – See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rapatea_paludosa. Five new images (last one in the commons category is a little tall, and if you notice, the one prior to that is a crop of it to make it the same perspective which would be the same size in a table cell as the other three).
• Restio festuciformis – Uploaded two images that may represent the plant better; you tell me. If used, the first one (here: File:Restio festuciformis 53303901.jpg) could be cropped to portrait and the second one (here: File:Restio festuciformis 58266682.jpg) remain as is (or close to it).
• Strelitzia reginae – See what you think of these: File:Strelitzia reginae 138543025.jpg and File:Strelitzia reginae reginae 165404365.jpg
• Thurnia sphaerocephala – :) perfect
• Typha latifolia – What do you think of this image for the first one to replace the one there? File:Hortus Botanicus Leiden grote lisdodde (Typha latifolia) (35687112584).jpg
• Xyris gracilis – Found these three images (going to crop the black border off): File:Xyris gracilis 75638607.jpg, File:Xyris gracilis 75638617.jpg, and File:Xyris gracilis 75638614.jpg.
• Zingiber officinale – Two new image options (not flowers – the one there is good): File:Zingiber officinale 230935597.jpg and File:Zingiber officinale 1123783.jpg.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that, feel free to make the edits to the list as you see fit. (And if you'd like to find images for the asterids later on, you're welcome to do those too!) I clicked on all your links above and had no problems with them. I agree that the Maranta image is a hard call ... the existing image makes it easier to see the habit and individual leaves, but your image has the plants in a natural environment. Your call. I'm headed off to bed btw. - Dank (push to talk) 05:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I would LOVE to wastespend time finding images for the asterids when the time comes. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Those images all look good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you! All have been cropped to the proper proportions, replaced with cropped copies, or replaced with different photos. I replaced some images because the cropping adjustments couldn't be made easily – either the uncropped file size was too small, or the math was going to be too complicated. I just want to figure out how to do the bird of paradise one. I like both of those images, but they don't go well together in size. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

More review from EEW

• Restionaceae row citation to Bayton (currently number 57) gives a error. Unless you define |ref= in the citation to use something other than author-date format (standard), {{Sfn}} calls without the year will give this error.
  • Yes, it had that error for a short time while I was getting rid of the Bayton citations to deal with The_Ed's first point. It's fine now. - Dank (push to talk)
• This leads into my next topic which is that I think using {{Sfn}} implies an author-date citation format. I have never seen a "just author" format, which is what is there now. However, I don't know that there is an actual "rule" about that (but would like to know). Standard {{Sfn}} formats would be

{{sfn|Givnish|Ames|McNeal|McKain|2010}}
{{sfn|Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew|2010}}
{{sfn|Christenhusz|Fay|Chase|2017|pp=175–211}}

and the |ref= parameter would not need to be defined. Currently in the article are

{{sfn|Givnish}}
{{sfn|Royal Botanic Gardens}}
{{sfn|Christenhusz|pp=175–211}}

and so on. If there is no date, n.d. is used in the |date= parameter of the Cite template. Other instructions exist in the template documentation for no author. I don't know if this article should all be changed or not, but I'd like to get other input on this for shortened footnote usage. Tagging a couple of people. I know Peter coxhead is familiar with shortened footnotes, and tagging Plantdrew because they know lots of things. :– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• • Happy to get input on anything from Peter and Plantdrew. - Dank (push to talk)

@Eewilson: as you probably know, the default "link name" for a shortened footnote is formed from up to the first four author last names plus the date. However, by including {{sfnRef}} in the actual reference, it's possible to use any arbitrary link name. So if you look at the entry in the current References section beginning "{{cite journal|last1=Givnish" it has |ref={{sfnRef|Givnish}}, thus allowing {{sfn|Givnish}} to link to it. This is most useful, in my view, for references to taxonomic databases like PoWO, where an author and certainly a date really don't make sense, but not needed for the Givnish et al. or Christenhusz et al. references. It just saves having to repeatedly type e.g. {{sfn|Givnish|Ames|McNeal|McKain|2010}}. I wouldn't myself bypass the default in such cases, and it could certainly be changed if you want. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter coxhead. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand what the POWO short citations are telling me; what is the reader supposed to be looking for? Examples:

1. POWO, Arecaceae, Flora of Tropical East Africa.
2. POWO, Arecaceae, Flora of West Tropical Africa.
3. POWO, Bromeliaceae, Flora of West Tropical Africa.
4. POWO, Cannaceae, Flora of West Tropical Africa.
5. POWO, Cannaceae, Flora of Somalia.

I think that the family means go there. But why the flora source? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The explanation is at Note b. I can add something to the note if you like. This is the standard way the "loc=" parameter displays (and I believe loc= is required in cases like this by our citations guidelines.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It might be good to do |loc=Arecaceae, Flora of Tropical East Africa, for example, for each one. The |loc= parameter can have a url in it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI, adding a link to |loc= is not required (unless it would be consistent among other citations in the article and is available and so on). However, it could be helpful to the reader in this case. Your call for now or for future reference. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

EEW review of Alts (and captions)

In order to be accessible, the image alt should describe what you see, not be the name of what you see (unless that is not in a screen readable capion, then include it). See MOS:ALT. For example, [[File:Rice diversity.jpg|thumb|upright=1|Rice seeds|alt=rice seeds]] could instead be [[File:Rice diversity.jpg|thumb|upright=1|Rice seeds|alt=display box of rice seeds showing their color and size variety]] or possibly even more detailed alt=display box of various sizes and colors of rice seeds; brown, black, ivory, green, rust, and yellow seeds are shown. Each image should have a descriptive alt.

Example from the table for the image of the bloom for Areca catechu: |alt=the large yellow bloom of Areca catechu is dozens of long, thin, <<.... and fill in proper words to describe it>>.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Image caption text in table is currenty the name of the species, which is already in the cell and wikilinked; in a browser (perhaps most browsers), if you hover over it, you see the caption. In the app (at least on my phone), it actually shows up as a caption below the image. The left one would be valuable saying "bloom" or "flower" or "close-up" or similar, and the right one as "leaves" or "growing habit" or similar. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Not my call, but I'll bring this up with whoever does my image review and see what they say. FWIW, my Featured Lists (all with lots of plant images) have passed 12 image reviews so far. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I hear you, but things can always get better, and we are about making Wikipedia better. Not that it's bad to have it the way you do. Just a suggestion. Keep in mind, though, that articles do not need to be consistent among each other (even articles in a "series"), just within. I'm a detailed reviewer. You did ask for my input. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to follow the recommendations of the source and image reviewers ... since I don't know who they'll be yet, I have no way of knowing (for sure) what they'll say. I know it's frustrating, but it would probably be better just to wait and see what they say, and then pick it up from there. - Dank (push to talk) 06:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, of course. Back to the Alts, though, are you thinking they don't need expansion? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to add more alt text, but this isn't working for me, Elizabeth, it's too much all at once. Let's wait and see what the source and image reviewers have to say, and then come back to this discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Eek. I did it again. I know I get carried away and can be overwhelming. Peace? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have now expanded all the alt text, added page ranges to Christenhusz for the two that didn't have them, added locations and links to IPNI, and added a note in the citations section (in addition to the existing note) to tell readers to click on "General information" at POWO after they search for the family name. Hopefully the source reviewer will find all this sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Also see my reply to The_ed17 about Burkhardt and POWO. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

For questions such as "did you look up the family or the order" and "where does the vernacular name come from", the answers will be immediately obvious to anyone reading those pages in the book: there's a section for each order with all the families in it, and each family name is immediately followed by a vernacular name. I'm not going to add text to that effect in the list itself; that would be patronizing (for readers who have the book, or can view the pages) or misleading and insufficient (for readers who don't have the book). (And sure, it's fine to reply to this ... in the course of working this morning, I realized that I had probably arrived at answers to the questions you were asking, so I went ahead and did everything I was comfortable doing, without waiting on the source review. Your thoughts are welcome.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I mean you added page numbers to Christenhusz, so that really answers that question. As long as the reader doesn't have to guess where to look. I should have been more clear that it's not about family or order, it's about what reference you used and where in the reference you obtained the information. I think The_ed17 and I were bringing up similar issues in different ways, and theirs was clearer. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You asked about the bunched citations in the lead; I've removed two cites and narrowed the range for another. I don't think it makes sense to remove or move any more cites; the two main ones (Givnish and RBG) are just one page each. We can discuss further with whoever the source reviewer turns out to be, if you like. Have I covered everything you've brought up so far? - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

EEW misc

• Cite the facts in the Key section. Suggest having them in prose rather than bullet, or at least add a sentence leading into them.
  • I have removed the two bullets in the Key. The remaining sentence doesn't need sourcing, and I've moved it to the Notes section.
• Lead paragraph: a group of citations at the end of a long sentence or multiple sentences isn't sufficing. Cite closer to the facts each source represents.
  • If you're saying there's something that needs to be sourced that isn't, I'm all ears. If you're saying my sourcing style is bad, let's run that by the source reviewer and see what they say. FWIW, my plant lists have passed 12 source reviews so far. Also FWIW, most of the feedback I've gotten on this and other Featured Lists has been in the other direction, asking me to bunch the citations when I wasn't doing that.
    • I think bunched citations make it harder to track down information. When MOS:CITE says cite close to the information, I take that to mean much closer than some do, especially for articles that contain scientific information. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Citations in the header of the main table are fine in general; however, they are not giving enough information to tell the reader where to get what they need (nor where you got the info).
  • Example: the last column is cited simply "IPNI". Does the family search for the species? The family? What are they searching for and why? To find out what the type genus is? Needs clarity. I've done something like "POWO (2021), search for species name" as the citation note (with "search for species name" in the |loc= parameter). With IPNI, it's a bit more complicated because there could be more than one entry for a taxon name.
  • Family: which citation gives which piece of data? Family name and that it is a member of the commelinids. Number of genera. Vernacular name.
  • Notes: header cites POWO but it's unclear why.
  • Order: in Christenhusz, did you look up the family or the order? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    • See the subsection just above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Support from Eewilson

Support: I support this moving to FL status. Thanks for the opportunity, Dan, and good work yet again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks kindly, glad you're happy with the result, and I hope to see you back at FLC soon in any capacity. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from The ed17

• Shouldn't refs 1, 2, 13, 19, 30, 41, and 58 have page numbers? WP:PAGENUM doesn't suggest that there's an exception for dictionaries or encyclopedias.
  • I'll source all of those citations (except Givnish) to Christenhusz (page numbers are already listed for that) and Burkhardt (which is a single web page). The two remaining page-less citations to Christenhusz are column citations; AFAIK, this is in common use at FLC (and probably elsewhere) to mean "I'm going with this source for this information; see the individual rows for page citations as needed". But if someone objects on the basis that I'm now relying too heavily on Christenhusz, I may have to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Apologies for adding all this work on your plate! There's two more left, I fear—#7 and #38, assuming the latter has page numbers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
      • I replaced Burkhardt with Christenhusz. POWO: I'm glad you brought that up. It was sourcing the number of genera, but it was going to be a pain to keep those numbers up to date, so those numbers and the bare POWO citation are now gone. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

        I hadn't thought about this, but yes, number of genera would have been a pain to maintain unless you put it on your calendar to check every year (ha!). I think it's still in the legend, btw. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Does "clade" need to be used without explanation in the first sentence? I worry that the unfamiliar term makes the article less accessible for a general reader, forcing them to click through to learn what it is before navigating back here.
  • Changed it to "a group of 29 interrelated ..."
• Also on readability, I don't love the reference in the middle of the first sentence.
  • Removed
• "The coco-de-mer has the largest seed of any plant, at up to 30 kilograms (66 lb) ... – is it the largest or the heaviest? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Changed to "heaviest". Thx for taking a look, very helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Happy to help! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
      • One more thing (and if this is a problem, let me know): for Burkhardt in this list, and in future lists, for Coombes, Bayton and Quattrocchi (but not Stearn): to avoid the problem we had above about page numbers, I'll give the url for a page where the info can be found online, and use the "loc=" parameter instead of page numbers. In the 2020s, a lot more people get their pages from websites than from books, and it will also be easier for me (since, in any alphabetical reference work that shows up online, the most accurate and reliable location to give for an entry will always be the entry itself). - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Sigh. Strike that; I've pulled Burkhardt again. All this stuff is now cited to Christenhusz again, with page numbers. I think I've covered everything you asked for now, but let me know if not. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Thanks Dank! Supporting this on text/MoS. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Thanks. It was good to see you again and catch up a little bit. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Partial image review

A little sketchy to be doing a partial image review for my own nomination! I've talked with Eewilson and we won't be doing this again, but I'm happy to do a basic review (license, alt text and basic picture quality) for the images she added. FLC coords: please let me know if you want me to ask around for an additional image reviewer. These images are: File:Bromelia pinguin 123247671.jpg, File:Bromelia pinguin 187943542.jpg, File:Achira (Canna indica) (14617918590).jpg, File:Costus pictus 135367696 (cropped).jpg, File:Yellow Nutsedge (18839920565).jpg, File:Yellow Nutsedge (18842642211).jpg, File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 28996254.jpg, File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 28998701.jpg, File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya 217897442 (cropped).jpg, File:Eriocaulon decangulare 182968379.jpg, File:Eriocaulon decangulare 153997821.jpg, File:Haemodorum corymbosum 174081397 (cropped).jpg, File:Haemodorum corymbosum 174081444 (cropped).jpg, File:Hanguana malayana plants.JPG, File:Mayaca fluviatilis 153929932.jpg, File:Philydrum lanuginosum flower8 (16630603383) (cropped).jpg, File:Philydrum lanuginosum 59076165.jpg, File:Pontederia cordata 1 PP (cropped).jpg, File:Rapatea paludosa 169125918.jpg, File:Rapatea paludosa 173626738.jpg, File:Restio festuciformis 53303901 (cropped).jpg, File:Restio festuciformis 58266682.jpg, File:Strelitzia reginae 138543025.jpg, File:Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden by ArmAg (34) (cropped).jpg, File:Hortus Botanicus Leiden grote lisdodde (Typha latifolia) (35687112584).jpg, File:20150813Typha latifolia3 (cropped).jpg, File:Xyris gracilis 75638607 (cropped).jpg, File:Xyris gracilis 75638617 (cropped).jpg and File:Zingiber officinale 1123783 (cropped).jpg.

Per her talk page, the tool she used for the ones downloaded from iNaturalist won't download the image if it doesn't have a free license. Her alt text is right in line with the alt text for the other images. Eyeballing these, it's fairly easy to tell that the flowers and leaves are identical or nearly identical to the ones on Commons listed for these species. (Personally, I try to pull from Commons, iNaturalist is a bit above my pay grade.) All the files except for File:Pandanu helico 100623-4742 mms.JPG, File:Philydrum lanuginosum flower8 (16630603383) (cropped).jpg, File:Pontederia cordata 1 PP (cropped).jpg, File:Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden by ArmAg (34) (cropped).jpg and File:20150813Typha latifolia3 (cropped).jpg were imported using the iNaturalist tool, so it was mostly trivial to verify the licenses. Picture quality is good in all cases. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, per her talk page, her position is that she's done an image review for the whole kit and caboodle ... I'm hoping that that plus my review of her images will be sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• As a note on the image review, I'm good with Eewilson's review plus your review back in turn for the images she added.
• In general, I try not to get involved in discussions of the contents of nominated lists as a delegate (as opposed to as a reviewer, where it's more appropriate); that said, since Dan has been discussing these lists with me previously: I was a little concerned that the structure/format of these three lists has been changing so much over their FLCs, first that they weren't matching each other and then that they were changing even after promotion in the case alismatid list, but I think that (thanks to Dan being so aggressive about updating all three lists with every change) that it's ended up in a good spot. I prefer the current format to some of the others, and I think the clean, double-images look nice, so thank you Elizabeth.
• I have two minor concerns, both of which I'll discount for this list in terms of promoting: one, that we've lost the explanation for why a particular species is the one with example images for the family (which was that it was a member of the type genus), though that's easily fixed by changing the legend from "Images" to something like "Images (member of type genus)" or something like that. It's not strictly necessary, but I think it'd be helpful. The other is that I dislike the "names with etymologies" titling scheme as being very wordy. I understand that you added it to get away from disagreements about what a list of "families" without qualification should include, but in the absence of any clear guidance from WP:PLANTS I think it's a reaction to a single reviewer's comments that could also have been solved by keeping the number of genera/species per family in the table. In the end, though, that's a content decision that I'm not going to try to be a gatekeeper on - I'm likely biased by working on lists of animals where there are dozens of species in a family, not thousands. Since you're navigating this space without PLANTS guidance and the reviewers don't seem to mind, I'm not going to make a fuss about the name.
• Promoting. --PresN 18:23, 20 December 2022 (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, 15 December 2022 (UTC) [16].

---

List of municipalities in Quebec

Nominator(s): Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

After a two-year hiatus and an arduous effort on this one due to the number of municipalities (1,231!) and the French-language barrier within sources, here is the 13th and final nomination in the set of Canada's 13 "lists of municipalities in province/territory". The end-goal is in sight. Upon bringing all 13 lists of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status, a featured topic nomination will be pursued. The standardized format from the 12 other featured lists (British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island) has been carried forward. Suggestions received from the previous 11 nominations have been taken into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

Good to see this concluded!

• Row scopes should be like !scope=row, not |scope=row, which makes it a "header" cell for the row in the wikicode. Note that this means you'll need a line break after the first cell so that any "header" formatting doesn't carry over to the next cell(s).

• Done

• Col scopes are for the top of the table, which you have, but then you also have them for the summary at the bottom of the table, which isn't right. Screen reader software uses the col scopes to read out what column/row a cell is, so having extras makes it messed up. It's hard to explain in words what the change should be, but

|- class="sortbottom" align="center" style="background-color:#f2f2f2" | !scope="col" align="center"| '''Total regional county municipalities''' |{{change|3909607|3738625|dec=1|align=center|invert=on|bold=on|bgcolour=#f2f2f2}} |scope="col" align="center"| '''{{nts|553765.38}}''' |scope="col" align="center"| '''{{Pop density|3909607|553765.38|km2|prec=2}}'''

should be

|- class="sortbottom" align="center" style="background-color:#f2f2f2" | !scope="row" align="center"| '''Total regional county municipalities''' |{{change|3909607|3738625|dec=1|align=center|invert=on|bold=on|bgcolour=#f2f2f2}} |align="center"| '''{{nts|553765.38}}''' |align="center"| '''{{Pop density|3909607|553765.38|km2|prec=2}}'''

and the same for the second row.

• Done

• When a header column spans multiple columns, like in !scope="col" colspan=5| [[Canada 2021 Census|2021 Census of Population]] at the top, it should be !scope=colgroup instead of col. Same for rowgroup and rowspans, but you don't have any.

• Done

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 13:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you, PresN. I believe I have properly addressed all three comments. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  • It looks like I missed some things. Thank you. Hwy43 (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mattximus

• I finally got around to reading this list, and it is easily one of the strongest I've ever reviewed, and I've reviewed quite a few over the years. The maps are just superb, the format follows previous lists which allows little room for improvement. Everything is up to date and well cited. The only change I could see would be a brief sentence describing why the Cree villages and Naskapi municipalities nearly all have 0 population. What is the purpose then of the municipality? That is honestly all the suggestions I can find. Could this be why so few are reviewing? There is very little to even knit-pick.
• Strong support for this list. Mattximus (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Mattximus. The mostly unpopulated Cree and Naskapi villages baffles me. I haven’t found why such is the case, the purpose of them despite being unpopulated, etc. Answers to such may exist on the web but likely in French so more difficult for an English editor to find. Thanks for the review. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Airship

• As above, very strong list which I support for promotion.
• Just one question: instead of a long See Also section, couldn't some of the links be included in the body? {{Main}}ing some of the sections such as "Parish municipalities" or "United township municipalities" could be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Airship. Great suggestion. Five links from See also have since been {{Main}}ed. Hwy43 (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This nomination has stalled out for a long time without a lot of review, but after looking it over (and passing the source review) I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 21:55, 14 December 2022 (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 December 2022 (UTC) [17].

---

Snooker world rankings 1978/1979

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it includes all of the relevant information, with suitable sources. The layout closely follows that for Snooker world rankings 1977/1978 which was successfully nominated as a featured list. Thanks for your consideration. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I think my only comment is one which I raised at a previous FLC but I can't remember what the outcome was. How come five players with 0 total points made it into the rankings? There must be more players who did not reach the last 16 of any of the previous three World Championships than just those five, so why were those five players officially ranked and the others not.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, ChrisTheDude. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snooker world rankings 1977/1978/archive1. I can still offer no explanation of how some players with 0 points were included. (I did think they should be omitted based on the Snooker Scene article where the rankings were published in 1978, but those players are listed in Chris Turner's Snooker Archive and in Kobylecky's The Complete International Directory of Snooker Players – 1927 to 2018). I've added "It is unclear why five players with 0 points were included in the rankings." to the text, which is equivalent to what happened for the 1977/1978 list article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 ||data-sort-value="Reardon, Ray"... becomes !scope=row | 1 (linebreak)|data-sort-value="Reardon, Ray".... If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, PresN. On the previous year's table I had used the player's name as the "primary cell", but I think that their ranking position should probably be the primary cell in the context of a ranking list. What do you think? Hopefully the changes I've made are OK. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree with having the rank be the primary cell here. --PresN 12:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

Having a look through now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm, the prose is fine - but the world rankings weren't just for the world championships - correct? They were also used for invitational events, right? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. The 1979 Masters (snooker), for example, had ten invited players but included the players ranked 11, 13, and 14; the 1979 Pontins Professional (eight players) included those ranked 9, 14, 23, and some unranked player called Steve Davis. It seems unlikely that UK-based players would turn down the chance to be included in either of these. If you have any examples, let me know. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• There is just one image - it has no description. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Do we need the boxes on the right? It looks like three infoboxes on top of each other. The info is in the table. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I realised that they contain some uncited information, too. I can't think of any logic for including "top three", so removed them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• It is unclear why five players with 0 points were included in the rankings. - I feel like it's likely active players who had competed in at least one of the three previous championships but lost in the opening round. I feel it would be better served as a note. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't work out where the lower rankings ever came from. As noted by a reviewer for the previous season's list, "it just looks really odd to see someone like M.Owen listed there whereas someone like David Greaves, who also seems to have competed in two WSCs during the relevant period without achieving any ranking points, is not included". As no players with no points were included in the Snooker Scene list, I have no idea where else the lower places could derive from - possibly some OR by someone (Chris Turner? Cuetracker?) down along the line which has now made its way into reliable sources? Converted to a note. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Reviews are stalling out a bit, so since this is a shorter list I've given this a look directly instead of waiting for other reviews first. I didn't find anything to complain about in either the list or the sources, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 18:56, 10 December 2022 (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 December 2022 (UTC) [18].

---

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2016)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Jal11497 (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the fourth Music Bank related list that I am nominating. I started working on it back in April and now I believe that it is ready to become a featured list. -- EN-Jungwon 16:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "Both singles spent a total of ten weeks at number making Twice the act with the most wins of the year" - as you literally just mentioned in the last sentence that each single spent five weeks at number one, I think this could be expressed more elegantly as "The total of ten weeks which the singles spent at number one made Twice the act with the most wins of the year"
  • Done.
• "The group ranked four singles at number one in 2016 achieved with "Sing for You", "Monster", "Lotto" and "For Life", the most of any act in 2016" => "The group achieved four number ones in 2016, the most of any act during the year: "Sing for You", "Monster", "Lotto" and "For Life"."
  • Done.
• "Member Baekhyun along with Miss A member Bae Suzy won their first Music Bank trophy for their collaboration song "Dream"." - specify first solo trophy, as Baekhyun had previously won as a group member (and Bae Suzy may have done too, I haven't checked previous years' articles)
• "A number of acts achieved their first number ones in 2016." - would this not make more sense being placed before the previous sentence?
  • Done.
• ""Monster" by Exo (pictured) earned the highest score of 2016, with 11,570 points at the June 17th broadcast." => ""Monster" by Exo (pictured) earned the highest score of 2016, with 11,570 points on the June 17th broadcast."
  • Done.
• The singer called Bae Suzy in the prose is only called Suzy in the image caption and in the table - any reason for this?
  • Done.
    • She's still just recorded as Suzy in the table.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude all done. Apologies for taking over a month. I had completely forgotten about this until I saw your edit on my watchlist. -- EN-Jungwon 12:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• No reason to bold "Music Bank Chart" (MOS:BOLDAVOID)
• "had hosted the show and continued to do so till" → "had hosted the show; they continued to do so until" (better flow, better word choice)
• "on November 4 and the following week" → "on November 4, and the following week" (avoid run-on sentence)
• Link to Exo should be moved to its first occurrence in lead
• "'Making A New Ending For This Story'" → "'Making a New Ending for This Story'" (occurs twice)
• Images need alt text

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 all done. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 07:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I changed one sentence (the same one RunningTiger123 also mentioned), but other than that found little to complain about. I'd quibble about whether or not the songs beginning with "the" or "a" should not sort under those letters, but I'm willing to let it go since this is a South Korean list and I'm not sure if the sorting rules work differently for English-language titles of South Korean songs. Consider changing them, though, if that is more correct. In any case, also passing the source review, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 18:52, 10 December 2022 (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, 4 December 2022 (UTC) [19].

---

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Fernando Alonso

Nominator(s): Radioactive39 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems like a very informative list about arguably both one of the best and most popular Formula One drivers of this sport. In my opinion, this list also gives a detailed overview about the driver's statistics and achievements (in this case: Grand Prix wins) throughout the driver's career. This could attract the attention of the readers, mainly because he is a popular Formula One driver, as I said before in my brief text. Radioactive39 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

*"currently competing for Alpine, who won 32 Formula One Grands Prix and two world championships." - is it Alsonso or Alpine that won this? "moved to Renault after just one season for initially being a test and reserve driver => "moved to Renault after just one season, initially to be a test and reserve driver" "before he was being promoted as a regular driver" => "before he was promoted to a regular driver" "managed to win consecutive world championships" => "won consecutive world championships" "in 2005 and 2006 as he won each seven races in both seasons" => "in 2005 and 2006, winning seven races in both seasons" " the then-youngest world champion in the history " => " the then-youngest world champion in history " "Alonso signed for the McLaren team in 2007 following a contract expiry with Renault[5]," => "Alonso signed for the McLaren team in 2007 following his contract expiring with Renault[5]," - also the ref should go after the punctuation, not before "narrowly losing out the title" => "narrowly losing out on the title" "due to a split between him and the McLaren team[7]," - ref should be after punc "first Spaniard to win a Formula One race.[8][c]." - why are there two full stops there? "including his both victories" => "including victories" "In all, Alonso won a total of 32 races at 19 different circuits" - has he retired? If not, this should be "In all, Alonso has won a total of 32 races at 19 different circuits" "achieved with cars being designed and powered by Renault" => "achieved with cars designed and powered by Renault" "subsequently making him the most successful Spaniard" => "making him the most successful Spaniard" "He was most successful at the Bahrain International Circuit in Bahrain" => "He has been most successful at the Bahrain International Circuit in Bahrain" "he curiously never achieved to win in Brazil." - "curiously" is not NPOV so remove "Alonso took a controversial victory at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, after his teammate Nelson Piquet Jr. was ordered to crash deliberately." - source? Refs 23 to 28 are not correctly formatted, missing almost all parameters Other refs are inconsistent in how works/publishers are shown eg 21, 40, 41, 43, 45 are all from the same site but show the work/publisher five different ways That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Hello ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for both taking a look at the list and subsequently making suggestions of improvement. I have amended the list based on your suggestions. Hopefully, the list fits well now. Regarding to your last suggestion in terms of the inconsistent refs, I need to look at it later closely, but the remaining errors have been fixed. Please feel free to comment again if I might forgot to edit something. Radioactive39 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Further comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

*Piquet Jr image caption - ref should be after punctuation, not before "Fernando Alonso is a Spanish racing driver, who won" - has he retired from the sport? If not, then this should be "Fernando Alonso is a Spanish racing driver, who has won" Image caption: "Fernando Alonso in 2016, winning a total of 32 races and back-to-back world championships with Renault." He is not winning them in the picture, so this should probably be "Fernando Alonso in 2016. He has won a total of 32 races and back-to-back world championships with Renault." No need to mention Kimi Räikkönen's full name both times he is mentioned in the lead - just use his surname the second time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Hello ChrisTheDude, the further comments have been added as well. Thank you very much for giving me your feedback and your suggestions in order to improve the list. Radioactive39 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

* 'He won consecutive world championships in 2005 and 2006, winning each seven races in both seasons.' last part of the sentence doesn't make sense. Change to 'winning seven races in each season.' 'At the time, he became the first Spaniard to win a Formula One World Championship...' at the time would suggest there's been another F1 champ from Spain since his victories which I don't think there has. Suggest having the pain bit in a separate sentence from the two records that have been surpassed by Vettel, as it currently reads like all three have been surpassed when one hasn't. ' two of three records that had been previously held by joint-record seven-time world champion Michael Schumacher.' what's the other record held by Schumacher he didn't beat? Not sure we need to mention two out of three as it leaves the reader wondering what the third record is when it's not made implicit in the sentence what that record actually is. 'beating the previous record of Bruce McLaren and also making him the first Spaniard to win a Formula One Grand Prix.' also making him is redundant here, remove it and keep the remaining bit 'After being winless in 2004...' -> After a winless 2004 season, 'before having a disappointing 2009 season...' remove having 'In all, Alonso has won a total of 32 races at 19 different circuits.' Again, not sure we need 'in all' here. Sentence works fine without it. ref 3, Sydney Morning Herald needs to be in italics as it's a publication. So change publisher to work in the cite template What makes maxf1.net a reliable source? I'm not convinced it is. Those refs should be easy to replace with BBC refs or the official F1 site ref 5 has autosport.com while ref 43 has Autosport. As Autosport is a publication, I think ref 5 should change to mimic ref 43. ref 33, what makes The Versed a reliable source? I think we can find a more reliable source from a news outlet to reference one of the most controversial races in F1 history. Likewise with ChicaneF1, I'm not convinced it's a reliable site. It can easily be replaced by BBC or the F1 site. That's all from me. NapHit (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Radioactive39: Are you still pursuing this nomination? The above comments have been left unaddressed for two months, and the nomination will be closed soon if no actions are taken. --PresN 14:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, unfortunately I did not see the above comments. I will improve the list based on the comments as soon as possible. And yes, I am still pursuing this nomination. Radioactive39 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@PresN@NapHit Improvements based on the above comments have been made. Radioactive39 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been sitting here too long, so I was hoping to review it myself and then promote it. Unfortunately, after giving the lead a copyedit, I don't feel that I can, due to one major issue: the first pargraph of the lead gives a chronological overview of his career... and then the second paragraph starts over at the beginning of his career and goes through it again. It's not at all clear to me why. Please either make the whole thing chronological, or make it more clear why some things are in paragaph one vs. two. --PresN 22:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Radioactive39: Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @PresN, thank you for your comment! I have finally made the whole thing chronological. I hope the text about Fernando Alonso's race wins is now both well-structured and well-written. Radioactive39 (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, made a couple tweaks, but, promoting. --PresN 15:00, 3 December 2022 (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.