Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2023

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, 28 February 2023 (UTC) [1].

---

The Microphones discography

Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am creating a good topic from the Microphones studio albums. The Microphones is a independent band, and has never charted, so the discography is a little different from most bands. They have many miscellaneous albums which I grouped into one category, since their attributes aren't mutually exclusive (e.g. there are some demo albums, and some compilation albums, but 2 compilation albums of demos. How do you split that into sub-sections). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The allmusic ratings are unnecessary as pretty much all featured lists of discographies don't have them, and a chart position column should be added if any of their albums have charted (even if it wasn't on the main Billboard 100 chart). Other than that, it looks good! The Midnite Wolf (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  @The Midnite Wolf: Hi! The reason I added the AllMusic ratings is because none of their albums have charted. Since AllMusic has rated their releases more than any publication by far, I thought it made sense to show them to the reader, since it provides extra context on how the albums were perceived. I'm willing to remove it, but I sort of want a better rationale than to be consistent with other articles: all subjects are different and so the content they require will naturally vary.

  I looked to see if the band has charted, and couldn't find anything. If anyone has any resources or advice for places to look that would be great. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments (Support from ChrisTheDude)

*While I appreciate that all numbers in the first sentence are written as digits so as to be written the same way, "Between 1996 to 1998, Elverum released 6 demos" - looks odd in isolation and could reasonably be changed "The CD Tests released in June 1998 and was compiled" => either "The CD Tests was released in June 1998 and was compiled" or "The CD Tests, released in June 1998, was compiled" but not what is currently there "The band's first studio album, Don't Wake Me Up, released on K Records in August 1999 and gave the band a small following" => "The band's first studio album, Don't Wake Me Up, was released on K Records in August 1999 and gave the band a small following" "Two more 7-inches released in 1999" => "Two more 7-inches were released in 1999" "The extended play Window: released in February 2000" => "The extended play Window: was released in February 2000" "In September 2000, the studio album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water released on K" => "In September 2000, the studio album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water was released on K" "The Glow Pt. 2 released on K in September 2001" => "The Glow Pt. 2 was released on K in September 2001" (I sense a pattern emerging here :-)) "Two 7-inches released in 2001" => "Two 7-inches were released in 2001" "The limited-copy album Little Bird Flies Into A Big Black Cloud was released in September 2002, and the single compilation album Song Islands was released in August" - August of which year? If it was 2002, why is it mentioned after an album which came out later in the year? "Foghorn Tape released in March 2021" => "Foghorn Tape was released in March 2021" "In February 2022, Completely Everything, 1996 - 2021 released" => "In February 2022, Completely Everything, 1996 - 2021 was released" Two of the demos were apparently released under totally different names - this should probably be mentioned in the lead (assuming they belong on the list at all.......?) Yeah, it's tricky, since it was essentially the same musical project, but not really. They're such obscure releases that there's barely any mention in sources, and its all after the fact. Elverum re-released 5 of the demos on digital (not sure why he didn't do the X-Ray Means Woman one, since it definitely exists), implying that they belong to a set by the same artist. Also, Early Tapes, the compilation of demos by the Microphones includes a track from the Mostly Clouds and Trees release; it kind of just seems like a pseudonym. But I found a source I hadn't seen before X-Ray Means Woman and Mostly Clouds and Trees made way for Elverum to begin naming his project the Microphones after developing an interpersonal relationship with his recording equipment and a deep reward in putting songs to tape. (KEXP, 2020) implying that the 2 demos aren't part of the Microphones. I think I might just remove them, and leave a footnote somewhere. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Now removed. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC) First of those two has no source to confirm its existence Note such as "Compilation album of "singles and rarities"." which are not complete sentences so not need full stops Song Islands is listed in the table after a later release Notes a and c don't need full stops Note b should write 2 as a word That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thanks so much for the comments :). Sorry about the "was released" vs "released" thing, had a brain fart. All the above done except noted. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Support - never heard of this band/project before I reviewed the list, but off the back of the review I listened to Microphones in 2020 last night and enjoyed it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Thank you! That's awesome you checked out that album— it's a great album. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments (Stricken oppose from Indopug)

Oppose as the writer of multiple discography FLs, I have to oppose this on account of the inclusion of the allmusic ratings. It is not standard practice to do so, nor is it a substitute for the band failing to chart (it's fine to just list the releases without any chart positions). Further it encourages pointless discussions like "why Allmusic? Why not Pitchfork too?" etc.—indopug (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC) @Indopug: I will remove the ratings column if you want to oppose. I just want to present why I added them originally. The ratings column gives the reader a bit of extra context, (for an artist with rather sparse information) and may give the reader a rough estimate of how the release was received (e.g. given AllMusic has rated the most The Microphones releases than any other publication, an unrated album can give the context that the album's release was not widely spread, e.g. Foghorn Tape) I don't see why the use of ratings has to be consistent with other articles. Every article is different and has therefore has different best practices. There is nothing in the FL criteria or manual of style that backs up this desire for consistency. The reason why AllMusic was included—and not, for example, pitchfork—was because it's the publication with the most comprehensive coverage of the discography. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC) @Indopug: Sorry for pinging twice, but do you have any response to this? Would you prefer if I remove the columns altogether? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC) If you want to give readers a little extra context, why not include the allmusic review in the references? The ratings do not give additional context, they just give an arbitrary, subjective assessment expressed in numerical form. On the other hand, the lede and the Description column you already have does a much better job of explaining the band and its records to the reader.—indopug (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC) @Indopug: I think I have to agree, thanks for the arguments. I've removed the ratings, are you able to support the FLC now? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Sebbirrrr

• "Mount Eerie is a concept album that portrays a linear storyline." - I'm not sure this is relevant for the discography
  • I think briefly describing each album gives the reader extra context on the artist's career as a whole. I'm not open to removing this, because I wrote short descriptions for the other albums (e.g. "went on to become a cult classic and Elverum's most critically acclaimed album"). It's inconsistent to remove one but keep the others. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    • That makes sense then, thanks for explaining. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• "has implied that the box set signifies the end of the Microphones" - is there a better way to word this? The source says: "implied that the box set marks the end of the Microphones"
• The note about the labels is somewhat unnecessary; the readers could go to the album articles to find more about the release history
  • I'm assuming you meant the footer in the studio album table; removed. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Yeah that's what I meant. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think it's worth mentioning that none of their songs charted as it is obvious from the table itself
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, the album titles should be italicized in the refs

That's all I have! I'd really appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my current FLC, which is also a discography! Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Sebbirrrr: All above done, except if noted. Thank you for the comments! I can try to get to your FLC if I remember. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @PerfectSoundWhatever: Support - all of my comments have been addressed and thanks! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

AJ29

• Support—don't see any flaws. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:00, 27 February 2023 (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, 28 February 2023 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Hot R&B Sides number ones of 1961

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's my 20th nomination of a yearly number ones list from what is now Billboard's R&B/hip-hop chart. In this year we see the start of a revolution in black American music, as for the first time the Motown label really makes its presence felt..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "African American-oriented": I'd rather get poked in the eye than make a big deal out of hyphens, but I'm probably supposed to say here that some people like "African-American-oriented", some prefer an en-dash in there somewhere, and some prefer to reword.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. 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) 04:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

A few minor comments --Newtothisedit (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• "who topped the chart for a single week with "One Mint Julep" and for five weeks with "Hit the Road Jack" Add the months these singles topped the chart, as I believe you do this with every other track
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• "R&B Jockeys chart" Is there a Wikilink for this chart?
  • Not to a specific article on it, but I linked to the "History" section of the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Maybe use an image of King closer to 1961 given that you do so with Charles and the Marvelletes.
  • None are available. The only images on Commons are all of him as an old guy :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• @Newtothisedit: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Support. Very well written and informative list --Newtothisedit (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:00, 27 February 2023 (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, 28 February 2023 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Hot R&B Sides number ones of 1960

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

With 1959 having gained some support, here's the list for 1960. No all-time greats gaining their first number one this year, just a near-50 year old harmonica player..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• What's with the italicized "(pictured in 19XX)". I haven't seen that before. Is that just an aesthetic choice?
• I would recommend that you archive the urls, but the archiving bot hasn't been working for me lately, so no biggy.

Not much to complain about - I'll go ahead and support. ~ HAL333 01:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333: - thanks for your review. Re: point 1, it's because the picture of Butler is the only one that isn't contemporaneous with the list of number ones, so it's to clarify that he wasn't a grey-haired old man in 1960..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I fixed one little punctuation snafu; otherwise I found nothing to fix. 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) 04:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:00, 27 February 2023 (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, 28 February 2023 (UTC) [4].

---

List of cities founded by Alexander the Great

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Alexander the Great rather liked the sound of his own name, but not as much as some people have thought. This is a listing of settlements generally considered possibly founded by the Macedonian king, accompanied by a discussion of those which people have connected to him erroneously.

This is my first FLC nomination; if successful, I will be using this nomination in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Dank

Comments

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing. I'm not a historian and I haven't read the sources, but I can say that the writing is generally clear. Nice work. The links you've supplied for recension and bematists are helpful, but most readers usually don't click on most links, so a quick description for each would be helpful. I'm not entirely sure how to give a short description for recension, but I've done bematist. "Although it is incorrect that Alexander named all his foundations after himself": I don't think readers need to be disabused of this notion (at least, not before you've established that there are people who believe this); it's not something they're likely to assume in the first place. It is a rather common notion though, so I'll keep it if you don't mind. The "Location" column isn't sortable, and that's fine with me, because the table is short enough (at 13 rows) to make it easy to eyeball the whole thing. If other reviewers disagree (or if you create similar tables in the future that have more rows), then I'd probably suggest sorting on the modern-day name of whichever country the site is in. Per MOS:BC, it's "BC", not "B.C.". Fixed. I know that some people don't like "332–1 BC". My understanding is that WP:MOSNUM disallows it ("never 1881–882 or 1881–2"), but I'm aware that some historians insist on this notation. I'm just raising the issue so that other people can deal with it if they feel like dealing with it. Nope, I should have noticed that. Fixed. There's no requirement for a set number of images, but images can be useful in luring reviewers in to take a look at your work. Maps such as File:AlexanderIndiaMap.jpg might be useful. Opinions vary on how much self-reference is best in lists. Some reviewers reject descriptions such as "this is a list of ...", but others think that, phrased one way or another, you have to say what's in the list to meet the FLC criteria. "(see Other settlements below)" doesn't feel right to me, though. That has now been removed. "While first-century AD Pausanias, Pliny, and Aelius Aristides recorded traditions which held": too convoluted. Simplify. Was a typo. Fixed. The first and last two images need alt text. Done. Checking the FLC criteria: 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table. (There's an argument that the dates should sort in the reverse order, but I don't think that's important.) 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria. 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations. 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review; I'll peek in again after a source review is done). 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 (except as mentioned above). 6. It is stable.

• Close enough for a support. Well done. You might want to comment on my current FLC nomination ... it's shorter than my other lists, and even drive-by comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your comments, Dank. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The changes look good. Welcome to FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Although it is incorrect that Alexander named all his foundations after himself" - I know you addressed this above, but I still think you need to provide some context as to why you mention it at all. Maybe something like "Although it is often said that Alexander named all his foundations after himself, this is incorrect; nonetheless....."
• "in the words of Getzel Cohen" => "in the words of the historian Getzel Cohen" (to make it clear that this isn't just some random person)
• "although there is no evidence that they named cities after Alexander the Great" - no need to relink him here
• First and fourth image captions don't need full stops, as they are not complete sentences
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• All done ChrisTheDude. Thanks for your comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

TheUzbek

Comments

I don't know anything about the topic so I'll be inspecting the grammar :) "especially considering the possibility that a settlement started out as a military" ... Remove "out" superfluous I'm just a reviewer (above), but I'll say this anyway: it's great that you took the time to go over this list in detail, TheUzbek, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying ... if I don't agree with every word, that's a relatively minor problem. Not being able to find enough reviewers is a major problem ... and different reviewers bring different skill sets to the table, and should always be appreciated and respected. But I do have a few specific replies, at least to your first few points. All the dictionaries that get cited a lot on Wikipedia support "started out", in the sense that the definition they give it is less ambiguous than the many definitions for "start", which makes "started out" a better choice if your goal is efficiency in helping the reader understand what you're saying. If the two of you decide you don't like the word "out", then there are other options (like "began"). Also, this is WP:FLC, not WP:FAC ... my understanding is that, even if it were true that there are a hundred words in this list that could be slightly improved on, there's nothing in the Featured List criteria that requires that everything in a long list of grammatical suggestions needs to get tackled before a promotion to WP:FL; you can take your time discussing these if you like. (Another way of saying this is: WP:FAOWN applies only to Featured Articles, not Featured Lists.) I think that's the prevailing opinion among reviewers here, but I could be wrong. - Dank (push to talk) @Dank: I can't entirely agree with what you wrote, and as I said below: he can disagree; the only thing I ask for is an explanation for why the user opted to retain the original wording. As for the quality standards needed to become FL, you are probably correct... My reply is: if it can improve, why not improve it? We shouldn't worry so much about the minimum standards required and focus more on making an article as good as possible. As for "started out", this is more style than grammar. I like fewer words; I speak a Germanic language, and the fewer word in a sentence, the better. In the English language, it's more common with longer sentences. What is written is not grammatically incorrect.--TheUzbek (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Not done; "started out" emphasises the existence-aspect, which I wish to highlight. "sobriquets" change to "monikers" ... sobriquets is not a very used word, and I would assume the average reader wouldn't understand it. Worth considering here is the ngram graph at Google Books ... sobriquet was actually much more common than moniker (in this graph) up until 1980 or so. I don't think it's a clear-cut decision ... my own style is to use more common words than either of these in FLs, but that's just me. - Dank (push to talk) Interesting, as I said above, I'm not a native English speaker... If you say its more in use now I'd still use monikers over sobriquets, but yet again.. THis is more a suggestion than a must. --TheUzbek (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Not done; "moniker" is to me rather informal. "It does not include any posthumous foundations or refoundations" --> "It does not include any posthumous settlements or refoundations of settlements" ... Suggestion, not a must. Not done; why is this better? "Photograph of a ruined arch supported by metal structures, in countryside with open water in the distance." ---> "Photograph of a ruined arch supported by metal structures in the countryside with open water in the distance." Done "but it is likely that some of these names refer to the same city" --> "but some of these names likely refer to the same city" I've seen a fair number of complaints over the years from Brits on Wikipedia that "likely" (as an adverb) doesn't work for them, and some qualify this by saying that it works if it has a modifier ... that is, "very likely refer" is more popular among some Brits than "likely refer". I also sometimes hear the same complaint from North Americans. Okay, sorry for the interruption ... carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC) I write British English (or at the very least, I try to write British English), but the author of the list, if he writes American English, should, of course, retain American wording and sentence structure. I didn't know there was a difference between American and British English in this regard. One learns new things every day! --TheUzbek (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC) I am British, but Dank's comment isn't quite true. I'm fine with the alteration, but unsure why it's an improvement. "In Mesopotamia, Nikephorion (present-day Raqqa), was occasionally attributed to Alexander" ---> In "Mesopotamia, Nikephorion (present-day Raqqa) was occasionally attributed to Alexander" Done "However, the historian W. W. Tarn theorised that it was actually a foundation of Alexander" --> "However, the historian W. W. Tarn theorised that it was a foundation of Alexander" Done " This identification has been rejected by historians such as Cohen and Fraser." ---> " This identification is rejected by historians such as Cohen and Fraser." Done "It is probable that Perdiccas was ordered to settle the city" --> "Perdiccas was probably ordered to settle the city" Not done; slight change in meaning. "Josephus noted that the inhabitants regained their ruler's favour and were granted permission to rebuild their temple and defences." ---> "Finally, Josephus noted that the inhabitants regained their ruler's favour and were granted permission to rebuild their temple and defences." Not done; not sure what's final about Josephus. Whether the city was founded before or after Alexander's visit to the Siwa Oasis is disputed; his motives for founding Alexandria are also the subject of controversy ---> "Whether the city was founded before or after Alexander's visit to the Siwa Oasis is disputed; his motives for founding Alexandria are also controversial" Done "The settlement would later grow into one of the most important cities in the world, with an estimated population of 500,000–600,000 in 1 AD." ---> "Nevertheless, the settlement would later grow into one of the most important cities in the world, with an estimated population of 500,000–600,000 in 1 AD." Not done; not sure what the contrast with the previous sentence is that necessitates a "Nevertheless". ". However, the epigraphic, numismatic, and literary evidence is late, and it is very possible that the connection to Alexander was a later fabrication." --> ". However, the epigraphic, numismatic, and literary evidence is late, and it is possible that the connection to Alexander was a later fabrication." Not done; difference in meaning. " It is generally accepted that the city was located close to present-day Herat, which is situated in a fertile oasis and on several trade routes; its precise location is unknown because the city has not been excavated at all" --> "It is generally accepted that the city was close to present-day Herat, which is situated in a fertile oasis and on several trade routes; its precise location is unknown because the city has not been excavated" Done, and clarified sentence. "Alexandria Ariana has sometimes been identified as a refoundation of the Achaemenid settlement Artacoana, but as the available sources outline a clear distinction between the two localities, this is considered unlikely." --> "Alexandria Ariana has sometimes been identified as a refoundation of the Achaemenid settlement Artacoana, as the available sources outline a clear distinction between the two localities; this is considered unlikely." Not done; proposed sentence does not make sense. "Both Fraser and Cohen emphasise that the identification of the above names as the same city is an assumption, albeit strong. " --"Both Fraser and Cohen emphasise that identifying the above names as the same city is an assumption, albeit strong" Done "The construction of the city took three weeks, and it was settled with Greek mercenaries, local tribesmen, and injured Macedonian veterans. It has traditionally been identified with Khujand, which controlled the Bukhara-Samarkand trade route and the entrance to the fertile Ferghana Valley" ---> "The city's construction took three weeks and was settled with Greek mercenaries, local tribespeople, and injured Macedonian veterans. " Not done; I'm unsure if you mean the elimination of the second sentence or something else. "Excavations of the modern city have suggested that the site was occupied by the Achaemenids. " --> "Excavations of the modern city have suggested that the Achaemenids occupied the site. " Done "The existence of this settlement is attested to by all the major historians and Pliny, but none use its primary modern toponym. " --> "All the major historians and Pliny attest to the existence of this settlement, but none use its primary modern toponym. " Done "Alexander settled 7,000 natives here alongside 3,000 retired soldiers, after journeying from Prophthasia. " --> "Alexander settled 7,000 natives here alongside 3,000 retired soldiers after journeying from Prophthasia. " Done "There is however considerable debate on whether the settlement was truly founded by Alexander, or by the later Seleucids." --> "However, there is considerable debate on whether Alexander or the later Seleucids founded the settlement." Not done; why is this better? Better flow, less wordy and fewer commas Done. "The battle had taken place on the eastern bank, and so Alexander named the eastern city Nikaia" --> "The battle had taken place on the eastern bank, so Alexander named the eastern city Nikaia" Not done; why is this better? Less wordy Done "he gave the western city the name Bucephala, after his favourite stallion, who had recently died. " --> "he gave the western city the name Bucephala after his favourite stallion, who had recently died. " Removed the other comma. "Considering the marshy nature of the ground and the frequent monsoons, it is unlikely much archaeological evidence could be found. " --> Considering the marshy nature of the ground and the frequent monsoons, much archaeological evidence is unlikely to be found. Not done; changed meaning. "Arrian records that he approved of the location, and ordered Hephaistion and Leonnatus to construct and settle the city respectively. " --> "Arrian records that he approved of the location and ordered Hephaistion and Leonnatus to construct and settle the city, respectively. " Done. "while Curtius Rufus tells that its settlers came from Arachosia. " --> "while Curtius Rufus says that its settlers came from Arachosia. " Changed to "states". "Its purpose was likely to control trade routes, with a harbour for naval trade, and access to the strategically important mountain passes of the region. " --> "Its purpose was likely to control trade routes, with a harbour for naval trade and access to the strategically important mountain passes of the region. " Done. "Its location is in doubt, as the coastline has changed significantly since antiquity" --> "However, its location is in doubt, as the coastline has changed significantly since antiquity" Not done; nothing for the "however" to contrast against. "The foundation of the settlement was attested to by both Arrian and Pliny the Elder. " --> "Arrian and Pliny the Elder attested to the foundation of the settlement. " "Although probably located at Naysan in modern Iraq, the city's location has been disputed as the hydrography of the region has near-continuously changed since antiquity." ---> "Although probably located at Naysan in modern Iraq, the city's location has been disputed as the region's hydrography has near-continuously changed since antiquity." Done "Its location is unknown, other than it being located near Babylon in Lower Mesopotamia. " --> "Its location is unknown, besides being near Babylon in Lower Mesopotamia. " Clarified sentences. "If it existed, it may have been founded by the Seleucid " --> "If it existed, it might have been founded by the Seleucid " Not done; why is this better? Less wordy is in my mind 99 percent of the time better It's the same number of words... "Various scholars identify it as identical with other attested Alexandrias: these include Charax Spasinu, Seleucia-on-the-Hedyphon, Alexandria near the Pallakopas, or Alexandria on the Tigris." --> "Various scholars identify it as identical with other attested Alexandrias: Charax Spasinu, Seleucia-on-the-Hedyphon, Alexandria near the Pallakopas, or Alexandria on the Tigris." Clarified. "south-western " --> "southwestern " Done "The site of the settlement is not known, and some scholars have found its historicity questionable" ---> "However, the settlement's site is unknown, and some scholars have found its historicity questionable." Not done; why is this better? Shorter sentence. Done/ ". "In 334 BC, Alexander visited Ilion, site of the ruined Troy. He ordered that the town be made exempt from taxes and that its buildings be rebuilt; he later promised to make the town a great city." ---> "In 334 BC, Alexander visited Ilion, the site of the ruined Troy. He ordered that the town be made exempt from taxes and its buildings be rebuilt; he later promised to make it a great city. " Done "Although it is certain that Alexander took a great interest in Priene (including dedicating the city's temple to Athena and granting exemptions to the populace), and even though it is probable that the town was refounded in the late fourth century, there is no direct evidence to claim Alexander carried it out. " --> "Although Alexander certainly took a great interest in Priene (including dedicating the city's temple to Athena and granting exemptions to the populace), and even though it is probable that the town was refounded in the late fourth century, there is no direct evidence to claim Alexander carried it out. " Done. "] While the later authors Pausanias, Pliny, and Aelius Aristides recorded traditions which held that Alexander refounded Smyrna, Strabo, writing in the first century BC, instead noted that the settlement was revived by Antigonus I Monophthalmus after Alexander's death." ---> "While the later authors Pausanias, Pliny, and Aelius Aristides recorded traditions which held that Alexander refounded Smyrna, Strabo, writing in the first century BC, instead noted that Antigonus revived the settlement I Monophthalmus after Alexander's death." Not done; ?????? "Other settlements in the region, with much less viable claims, include Aegae, Alexandria by Latmos, Amorium, Apollonia, Chrysopolis, Eukarpia, Kretopolis, Nicaea, and Otrus" ---> "Other regional settlements, with much less viable claims, include Aegae, Alexandria by Latmos, Amorium, Apollonia, Chrysopolis, Eukarpia, Kretopolis, Nicaea, and Otrus" Not done; in the region =/= regional. "In Syria, the city of Antioch, later to become one of the major cities of the ancient world, claimed a relationship to Alexander. " ---> " In Syria, the city of Antioch, later to become one of the major cities of the ancient world, claimed a relationship with Alexander. " Fairly certain these sentences are identical. "with" and "to" ... that's the difference Done. "According to Libanius, a 4th-century AD native of the city, Alexander planned to found a city on the future site of Antioch, but did not have enough time to do so; he did however set up a shrine to Zeus and a small fortress. " --> "According to Libanius, a 4th-century AD native of the city, Alexander planned to found a city on the future site of Antioch but did not have enough time to do so; he set up a shrine to Zeus and a small fortress. " Done, somewhat. "It is likely that this tradition was merely a local legend." ---> "Likely, this tradition was merely a local legend." Not done; see above. "Tyre was besieged and destroyed in 332 BC, and Gaza experienced a similar fate later the same year. " ---> "Tyre was besieged and destroyed in 332 BC, and Gaza experienced a similar fate later in the same year. " Done. "Other less well-supported claims include that of: Alexandroschene, Capitolias, Dion, Larisa Sizara, Nikopolis, Paraitonion, Pella, and Seleucia Abila." ----> "Other less well-supported claims include that of Alexandroschene, Capitolias, Dion, Larisa Sizara, Nikopolis, Paraitonion, Pella, and Seleucia Abila." Done. "In Mesopotamia, Nikephorion (present-day Raqqa), was occasionally attributed to Alexander, but it was more probably founded by Seleucus I." ---> "In Mesopotamia, Nikephorion (present-day Raqqa), was occasionally attributed to Alexander, but Seleucus I more probably founded it." Not done; poorer reading. "The 19th-century Orientalist H. C. Rawlinson proposed that the Macedonian king founded a settlement shortly after and near to the Battle of Gaugamela, in Assyria. ---> "The 19th-century Orientalist H. C. Rawlinson proposed that the Macedonian king founded a settlement shortly after and near the Battle of Gaugamela in Assyria." Done "city-names " ---> "city names " Done "Alexandria on the Tigris have been proposed; but it is likely that some of these names refer to the same city." ---> "Alexandria on the Tigris have been proposed, but some of these names likely refer to the same city." Not done; see above. "Thus, Alexandria Opiane and Alexandria Kapisa are considered to be names for Alexandria in the Caucasus; Alexandria near Baktra and Alexandria Oxiana may both refer to the same problematic settlement; while in India, the settlements of Taxila and Patala probably existed, but neither was likely founded by Alexander." ---> "Thus, Alexandria Opiane and Alexandria Kapisa are considered to be names for Alexandria in the Caucasus; Alexandria near Baktra and Alexandria Oxiana may both refer to the same problematic settlement; while in India, the settlements of Taxila and Patala probably existed, but Alexander likely founded neither." Done "Quintus Curtius Rufus wrote that Alexander founded a number of cities in the Indus Delta, but if it means anything he most probably meant some garrisons." ---> "Quintus Curtius Rufus wrote that Alexander founded several cities in the Indus Delta, but if it meant anything, he most probably meant some garrisons." Sentence clarified. "This list contains settlements established or re-established on the order of Alexander the Great himself, often in his presence and always before his death in 323 BC. " ---> "This list contains settlements established or re-established on the order of Alexander the Great, often in his presence and before his death in 323 BC." Not done; unclear whether "often" also applies to the death clause. "Discussion of these settlements is found below." ---> "A discussion of these settlements is found below." Done "Although it is often said that Alexander named all his foundations after himself, this is incorrect; nonetheless, the abundance of these settlements led to many taking on epithets such as Eschate or Oxeiana. " ---> "Although Alexander often named all his foundations after himself, this is incorrect; nonetheless, the abundance of these settlements led to many taking on epithets such as Eschate or Oxeiana. " Not done; doesn't make sense. "The classicist William Woodthorpe Tarn noted on the matter that "the difficulties of the subject are considerable, the margin of uncertainty often substantial, the sources of confusion numerous"." --_> "On the other hand, the classicist William Woodthorpe Tarn noted that "the difficulties of the subject are considerable, the margin of uncertainty often substantial, the sources of confusion numerous"." Not done; it's the same hand, so to speak. "The maximum estimate of seventy cities is provided by Plutarch in his Life of Alexander, but most texts attest to between ten and twenty foundations. " ----> "Plutarch provides the maximum estimate of seventy cities in his Life of Alexander, but most texts attest to between ten and twenty foundations. " Done. "Persian sources such as al-Tabari, al-Dinawari, Hamza al-Isfahani, and Qudama all ascribe between nine and twelve settlements to Alexander." --> "Persian sources such as al-Tabari, al-Dinawari, Hamza al-Isfahani, and Qudama ascribe nine and twelve settlements to Alexander. " Done. "supplementary evidence. " ---> "additional evidence. " Not done; why is this better? "Finally, there are the geographers Erastothenes, Ptolemy, and Pliny who draw upon the otherwise-lost evidence of Alexander's bematist distance-measurers" ---> "Finally, the geographers Erastothenes, Ptolemy, and Pliny draw upon the otherwise-lost evidence of Alexander's bematist distance measurers" Done. "Alexander was groomed for rulership from an early age and acceeded to the throne after the assassination of his father Philip II. " ---> "Alexander was groomed for rulership from an early age and succeeded to the throne after the assassination of his father, Philip II. " Not done; why is this better? Both because it has a comma after "father" and because, in my mind, it sounds better... But the comma is important Done. "After subduing rebellious vassals, he launched an invasion of the Persian Achaemenid Empire in 334 BC. " ---> "After subduing rebellious vassals, he invaded the Persian Achaemenid Empire in 334 BC. " Done "Alexander swiftly conquered large areas of Western Asia and Egypt, before defeating the Persian king Darius III in battle at Issus and Gaugamela. " ---> "Alexander swiftly conquered large areas of Western Asia and Egypt before defeating the Persian king Darius III in battle at Issus and Gaugamela. " Done "Achieving complete domination over the former lands of the Achaemenids by 327 BC, Alexander attempted to conquer India, but turned back after his weary troops mutinied. " ---> "Achieving complete domination over the former lands of the Achaemenids by 327 BC, Alexander attempted to conquer India but turned back after his weary troops mutinied. " Done "Following his death aged thirty-two in Babylon in 323 BC, his empire disintegrated in a series of civil wars fought between his former followers" ---> "Following his death, aged thirty-two in Babylon in 323 BC, his empire disintegrated in a series of civil wars fought between his former followers" Not done; "aged ... BC" doesn't work as a sub-clause. You don't need to follow all my suggestions, but if not please explain why—maybe I can learn in the process :) As for the information, the representation of sources — very good work! :) At last, thanks for reviewing my nomination. I really appreciate it!--TheUzbek (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Thank you very much for your comments, Uzbek. You can find my responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks again, TheUzbek. I've executed most of your comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support --TheUzbek (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed (I made some minor changes); promoting. --PresN 17:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC) [5].

---

50th Anniversary of the Republic Sculptures

Nominator(s): Gazozlu (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a finished and complete list. It gives a good impression of the scope of these 20 sculptures and a quick overview of what happened to the ones that are no longer around. Gazozlu (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Move the refs to their own column. The rows where there are no notes look weird with the refs floating in the middle of a massive cell -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Took care of that issue. Also another option is to introduce another column with the material of the sculpture, (i.e. Concrete, bronze). Do you think that would be a good addition ... or too much? Gazozlu (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Also a drive-by from me: avoid using allcaps in sources (such as "TÜRK KÜLTÜRÜNDE BEDEN VE "GÜZEL İSTANBUL" OLAYI"). ~Styyx^Talk? 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Took care of this issue. I have also added a materials column now. Gazozlu (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

More comments

• The caption of the image in the lead does not need a full stop. Also, it is usual to place the lead image right at the top, not after the first paragraph of test
• Merge tiny second paragraph with the one after
• "The result of the project were" => "The result of the project was" (result is a singular word)
• "Güzel İstanbul, by Gürdal Duyar, was found....." - this is an absolute monster of a sentence which takes up almost the whole paragraph. Can you break it up?
• "Yağmur by Ferit Özşen suffered nature's wrath" - this is poetic wording not suitable for an encyclopedia. Just say "Yağmur by Ferit Özşen was damaged by [whatever damaged it]"
• "Attacked and damaged for years and eventually removed in 2016." - not a sentence so doesn't need a full stop
• "about its appropriteness" => "about its appropriateness"
• "Removed in 1987 when the road parallel to the beach was widened." - doesn't need a full stop
• "Stolen the same day[3] or a week after[16] it was inaugurated." - doesn't need a full stop
• "In front of the Hilton Hotel in Harbiye." - doesn't need a full stop
• "Lost in 1979 during the construction of a preferential road." - doesn't need a full stop
• "the last being front of the Yellow Kiosk" => "the last being in front of the Yellow Kiosk"
• "Removed in 1985 during organisations of the Fındıklı Park." - doesn't need a full stop
• "Lost in 1980." - doesn't need a full stop
• "Stolen by scrap dealers[3] or was otherwise removed in 1986." - doesn't need a full stop
• "Removed from Gülhane Park in 1984 by the Parks and Gardens Directorate." - doesn't need a full stop
• "Removed during renovation of the park." - doesn't need a full stop
• "Hüseyin Anka Özkans Yankı was worked on for 6 hours" => "Hüseyin Anka Özkans' Yankı was worked on for six hours"
• "Within the scope of the restorations the sculptures to be restored till the end of 2012" - that was ten years ago, but the wording talks about it in terms of a future plan. Did this definitely happen?
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments. I have implemented your points. Gazozlu (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support - apologies for totally forgetting to revisit this one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• It would be helpful to expand on why the sculptures were so controversial and who objected. Was is mainly religious people? This is of course if relevant sources exist.
  • The only one that is known to be removed by pressure from conservative people is Güzel Istanbul. The other ones that were removed were mostly not particularly controversial reasons such as lack of maintenance, vandalism, being stolen for scrap metal and being removed to make way for infrastructure etc. There's one or two others that were reportedly removed at the whim of a governor or mayor that allegedly didn't like the sculpture but there is not enough information about the reason to be able to say it was controversial. The details are per sculpture in the notes to the extent that information is available.--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• "Güzel İstanbul, by Gürdal Duyar, was found to be "indecent"" Who decided it was indecent?
  • Specified.Y--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• "Birlik by Mehmet Uyanık was the victim of a municipal compressor gun in 1986." The fact that it was deliberately destroyed is important, not how it was destroyed.
  • Clarified this, also the municipal pressure compressor gun (probably a pressure washer) detail is included because it has been noted in the sources that talk about it.Y--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• "construction of a preferential road". What is a preferential road?
  • A preferential road is a road that has a preference for who can use it such as for example a bus lane.--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• "preferential" should be explained in the text, or better still removed as irrelevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Good point, I removed it.Y--Gazozlu (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Hüseyin Anka Özkans' Yankı was worked on for 6 hours under the consultancy of Üzlifat Özgümü and at the end was reportedly restored to its original state." This is too much detail. I suggest "Hüseyin Anka Özkans' Yankı was reportedly restored to its original state."
  • Detail removed.Y--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• In the notes, it would be helpful to state that a sculpture is still in its original location for those which are.
  • Added in the notes.Y--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Dudley Miles: I have implemented your feedback.--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now apart from one further comment above. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, I implemented your suggestion on the further comment.--Gazozlu (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been hanging around for a while; source review passed, no problems found in review, promoting. --PresN 01:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Saxifragales families

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The previous Featured LIsts in this list series are linked in the "See also" section; those lists and their WP:FLC discussions do a pretty good job of covering the story so far. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

• Could the three short sections at the top be combined (MOS:OVERSECTION)?
• For the less botanically inclined among us, a few more wikilinks in the common characteristics section wouldn't go amiss.

Otherwise, great. Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks much. I've combined the first two sections and added links. I also eliminated the "Legend" section, and moved some of that information into column headers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support: No issues, great work! Also, if you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by 24 Oras regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 20:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

After a turbulent start, these plant lists seem to now be smooth sailing- promoted. --PresN 03:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Billboard Tropical Airplay number ones of 1998

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a legend in the Latino community. If you go to any party and utter the words "Suavemente", you'll attract a swath of Hispanics chanting "Besame" and then the famous merengue song from Elvis Crespo plays. Keep that mind when you go to party with a large Hispanic following. Just like the Latin Pop Airplay charts of '98, the hurricane affected the Tropical Airplay charts. Erick (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "having topped the listing" => "topping the listing"
• "Following a success stint" => "Following a successful stint"
• "Grupo Manía themselves achieved their second number-one" => "Grupo Manía themselves achieved their second number one"
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude All fixed! Thanks as always! Erick (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Ref 8 seems to be dead
• Ref 9; add url-access=subscription
• Ref 17 seems to be dead
• Ref 23 replace it with (https://www.billboard.com/charts/latin-tropical-airplay/1998-02-07/) as the current reference shows the number one song for the following week.
• Ref 33 should be (https://www.billboard.com/charts/latin-tropical-airplay/1998-04-18/). The current reference is for two weeks earlier.
• Ref 34 same as above should be (https://www.billboard.com/charts/latin-tropical-airplay/1998-04-25/)
• Ref 44 should be (https://www.billboard.com/charts/latin-tropical-airplay/1998-07-04/)
• Ref 57 the title says "T Airplay". Was there a change in the name of the chart? If possible could you indicate that in the prose?

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 04:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon Thanks for catching those! Some artists unfortunately do not have a database, so I did some changes to several references. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Support looks good. -- EN-Jungwon 03:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This has been hanging around for a while without a lot of attention; I've reviewed it, however, and I'm good to promote it. --PresN 03:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC) [8].

---

74th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It's been a little bit, but I'm back with my fourth in this series of FLCs (following the 73rd, 72nd, and 59th ceremonies). It's very similar to those lists, but as always, any new feedback is appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Good to see you back here.
• In 74th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards#Ceremony information, "This year" (used twice) doesn't sound right to me, even though "the year I just mentioned" (i.e. "That year") is one of the possible meanings of the phrase, which would be fine. Paradoxically, if we were talking about the 2010 awards, "this year" would have no ambiguity at all. But when you're writing about the 2022 awards in 2022, I think some readers will take this to mean "the current year", which would probably be a MOS:CURRENT problem.
• In the same section: "both were shifted" sounds fine ... that's an action someone took ... but "were now ineligible" would probably be better as "became ineligible".
• I don't think the "Personalty rights warning" applies on the RuPaul image, as a photo of "an identifiable individual taken in a public place". If anyone disagrees, I'll look into it.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose checks out. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables. I believe table captions and proper coding were all present, but I got bored at some point so I might have missed some.
• 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.
• Close enough. Support. Well done.
• You might be interested in my current FLC nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Done (except for the image rights – I'm not an expert and I don't think it hurts to have it, so I'll leave it for now). Thanks for the feedback. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The only thing I got is that I think "Any films placed on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences platform became ineligible for the Emmys. (Previously, this rule only applied to non-documentary films.)" should be "Any films placed on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences platform became ineligible for the Emmys (previously, this rule only applied to non-documentary films)." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Support by Chompy Ace

• That's it! There is the only thing you need to resolve: Archive all archivable sources to prevent link rot. Also, if you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by 24 Oras regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 10:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Chompy Ace: Done (IABot wasn't working when I initially created the nomination). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Support Chompy Ace 19:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool turns up no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Closing, promoted. --PresN 03:07, 18 February 2023 (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, 10 February 2023 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2015)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Jal11497 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I am renominating this article after the previous nomination was archived as there was only one user that supported the nomination. All issues found in the previous nomination were fixed. I hope this gets nominated this time. Thanks. -- EN-Jungwon 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I was the one editor who supported before and see no reason not to do so again..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sebbirrr

• "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Soribada." → "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music, and Soribada."
• "Of all releases for the year Exo's" → "Of all releases for the year, Exo's"
• "The group had four number one singles on the chart in 2015 achieved with "December, 2014 (The Winter's Tale)", "Call Me Baby", "Love Me Right" and "Sing for You"" → "The group had four number one singles on the chart in 2015: "December, 2014 (The Winter's Tale)", "Call Me Baby", "Love Me Right" and "Sing for You""

That's all from me! Sebbirrrr (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sebbirrrr all done. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 13:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: Support - great work! Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support by Chompy Ace

No issues. Great work! Also, if you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Guardians of the Galaxy (film) regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 01:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – Although I can't read in Korean, source reliability seems okay from what I can tell, the formatting is up to scratch, and the link-checker tool shows no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Closing, promoted. --PresN 18:09, 9 February 2023 (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, 10 February 2023 (UTC) [10].

---

List of accolades received by Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 03:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I nominated this list since I reworked and expanded the table at the parent article for this standalone list of Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Chompy Ace 03:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing. Excellent work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Add link to Hollywood Post Alliance Award for Outstanding Editing – Feature Film
• "The Maxwell Weinberg Publicists Showmanship Motion Picture Award" should not sort by "The"
• I don't know if the CinemaCon Award really recognizes Pratt's work in this film specifically, but if it stays, the date should be changed.
• This is really nitpicky, but when sorting, individuals should always come before groups. For instance, "Stephane Ceretti" should always sort before "Stephane Ceretti, Nicolas Aithadi, Jonathan Fawkner, and Paul Corbould", which isn't currently the case. (Template:Sortname can help with this, or updating the sort values. But again, this is pretty nitpicky and more for reference.)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

RunningTiger123: all  Done. Chompy Ace 22:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

Support. Found no major concerns. -- EN-Jungwon 16:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed, closing, promoted. --PresN 18:09, 9 February 2023 (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, 10 February 2023 (UTC) [11].

---

Arsenal Player of the Season

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This is my first time nominating a list. Honestly just looking for advice to perfect the article and to determine whether it is worth adding to the featured lists. I think its a really good list and I believe it is already considerably better than the other 'player of the year' featured lists. I think the list is simple, straight to the point, complete, well-referenced and informative. Again, really just looking for friendly advice so I can make it a better article. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Footballistically@Phikia@StraightOuttaBoston@Footwiks@Mediocre Legacy Idiosincrático (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is split into five tiny paragraphs, some of these could probably be combined

Done

• "The award is given based solely on the votes of Arsenal fans on Arsenal.com usually just before or after the last Premier League game of the season" - source?

Done

• "The trophy resembles a replica of a cannon, referring to Arsenal's logo, and the statues of cannons outside the Emirates Stadium, Arsenal's home ground" - source? Also, surely it is a replica of a cannon, rather than just resembling a replica?

Done

• "The 2015–16 and 2016–17 awards were officially called the Vitality Arsenal Player of the Season Award for sponsorship purposes." - source?

Done

• "English people remain as the dominant nationality when receiving the award" - really strange wording. I would just say "English players have received the award most often".

Done

• "Alan Smith won the 1989 award, being the league's top scorer." - source for the last bit?

Done

• "Cesc Fàbregas won the award in 2007 at 20 years of age" - source for him being 20? Also this caption needs a full stop.

Removed it

• "First Arsenal Academy graduate" - source? Doesn't really add to the article

Removed it

• Players' names should sort based on surname, not forename

Done

• What makes these high-quality reliable sources?
  • myfootballfacts.com - Replaced with book reference
  • thefootballfaithful.com - Replaced
  • english.stadiumastro.com - Replaced
  • sportmob.com - Replaced
  • thehardtackle.com - Replaced
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you so much @ChrisTheDude, I've had a good try at fixing these, please let me know how I went or if there is anything else. Idiosincrático (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• One other thing I noticed (not sure if this was the case before or if it's because of subsequent changes - in the refs Arsenal F.C. is sometimes the work (and therefore in italics) and other times the publisher (and therefore not). It should be the publisher every time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed, yeah it was definitely me systematically writing the manual references incorrectly. @ChrisTheDude Idiosincrático (talk) 01:17, 17 October 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.
• 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 00:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Captions added, I made them hidden as they all have headings. Cheers Idiosincrático (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Prose review

These are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to disagree.

• Per MOS:NUM, all numbers smaller than ten in the lead should be spelt out in words. - Done
• The final sentence of the lead could be added to the end of the first paragraph. - Done
• "The award has been given based on votes by Arsenal fans on Arsenal.com." a) since when? b) no need to specify the address when you could just say "the club's website"
  - Part b addressed, see below for a
• "However, it has been previously based on votes by the Arsenal Supporters' Trust." a) However is unnecessary, b) "has been" could just be "was" - Fixed
• Not entirely sure why the best player is needed in "being awarded 'best player'" - Fixed
• A source for the last few lines of the second paragraph would be helpful, just to make sure WP:DUE is satisfied. - Removed as I couldn't source the lines
• Citation 4 doesn't support the sentence. - Removed the sentence and citation completely, also changed preview pic and caption

All for now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, thank you for your comments. I managed to address all of the points you brought up except part 'a' of your second point. This is because I couldn't find a source which indicates when they switched the vote to the club's website. I could traceback the vote on the website to 2005 but that doesn't exactly imply it started there, the encyclopedia source only says "the Offical Arsenal Supporters Club has voted for the award". Because I couldn't answer it, I've left the lead as is, please let me know if this is satisfactory or not. Other than that everything was fixed. :) Idiosincrático (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - there were still issues with the lead but I figured it was quicker to just make the changes than to explain them here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support --Phikia (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Very well done list, just a few minor comments

• Link Brady and Bergkamp in the lead given that you link other players.
• You could mention the first player outside of Europe to win it since you mention the first player outside of the UK and British Isles. This is up to you, its just suggestion.
• You might want to add one more image after Van Persie to fill up the remaining space.

That's all I have. --Newtothisedit (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

All Addressed. Cheers @Newtothisedit. Idiosincrático (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Support--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed, closing, promoted. --PresN 18:09, 9 February 2023 (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, 6 February 2023 (UTC) [12].

---

Lodestar Award for Best Young Adult Book

Nominator(s): PresN 23:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Way back in 2010/2011, I pushed an entire set of a 15 lists through FLC around the Hugo Awards, oft-considered the premier award in scifi/fantasy literature. Since then, there's been a trickle of new categories/lists: one in 2012 (FL'd in 2015), one in 2017 (FL'd in 2021), and now this one from 2018: the "not a Hugo but looks like one if you squint" Lodestar Award for Best Young Adult Book. This category is for scifi/fantasy young adult fiction novels, and follows all of the same nominating/voting rules as a regular Hugo category; it gets relegated to being a separate award as a compromise as it's for a "genre" of work instead of a "type", like novels vs. short stories. In any case, it's long enough now to have some size to it, and follows the pattern set down by the other 17 Hugo lists, and to a lesser extent the other sff awards lists I've also done over the years. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "The books on the ballot are the six most-nominated by members that year, with no limit on the number of stories that can be nominated" - pedantically, "stories" should probably be "books", as the nominations are for books, which could contain multiple stories
• I can't remember how you formatted your Hugo lists, but is there the possibility of adding images? We appear to have images available of several of the winners to date.....
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Changed to books; I don't usually have images on these unless I have a free-use logo or photo of the award (none available here, sadly) or an image of a recipient actually getting the award/at the ceremony, so that the image is more than just decoration, and in this case I'm coming up empty. --PresN 15:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Fair enough. In that case happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support – The only issue I see is that "5 years" should be "five years" per MOS:NUM and for consistency, and I'm sure you'll fix that, so happy to support right away. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Support from PanagiotisZois

I made a minor change to the list. The only problem I have is that the references keep getting repeated in the "Ref." column. The should be fixed so that the single reference is stretched across the whole column for a given year. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Done. --PresN 01:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I'm all that hot about every source being a primary one, but maybe that's just cause I'm used to doing a mixup of primary and independent sources. Irregardless, the Hugo Awards are old AF, and I don't mind either way. So, it's a support from me. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Image and source reviews – There are no photos used in the article, so that part is easy. All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool didn't detect any issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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