Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2020

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) 00:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC) [1].

---

Wikimedian of the Year

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedian of the Year is awarded by Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales. The award honors major achievements within the Wikimedia movement. There have been 10 recipients. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support, Wikimedia movement and ideology needs to be promoted in all possible ways to attract more editors, this is one of the ways. --ssr (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you ssr! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

;Comments "Date August 2011; 8 years ago [....]First awarded 2011" - any reason why these are both needed when they seem to both say the same thing? "an Kazakh entrepreneur" => "a Kazakh entrepreneur" it was awarded to Wikipedia editor named "Demmy"" => "it was awarded to a Wikipedia editor identified as "Demmy"" (we don't know that the editor is actually named Demmy) "Ihor Kostenko, he actively promoted" => "Ihor Kostenko, who actively promoted" "and he was killed during a protest." => "and was killed during a protest." "After two years, the first joint recipients was awarded to" => "Two years later, the first joint award was presented to" 2014 row - refs are not in correct numerical order Also, there shouldn't be row breaks between refs in the same cell "Farhad is a community-organizer" - no reason for that hyphen. Also, he should be referred to by his surname, not his forename "Emna joined with several others" - she should be referred to by her surname "and co-chairing Wikimania 2018's program committee" => "and co-chaired Wikimania 2018's program committee" "For off-wiki activities including an editing campaign and youth camp." - not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop "Created the Persian-language arm of the "Wikipedia Library". " - also not a complete sentence "Established the "#100wikidays" contest, which challenges editors to create one Wikipedia article per day for one hundred days." - also not a complete sentence "Nahid is instrumental" - should be referred to by his surname "Started a year-long effort to put underrepresented scientists and engineers on Wikipedia." - also not a complete sentence Think that's it from me. Quite a few (admittedly minor) issues, so I'm mildly surprised by the unconditional support !vote above...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Hi ChrisTheDude, I have addressed all of the comments. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you ChrisTheDude! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aza24 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24 - I'd love to support, I just have some minor comments first. - Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC) The info box: "major achievements..." should surely be capitalized to "Major achievements" if you are capitalizing the first letter for the other information in the info box? Perhaps "Formerly Called" should be "Former Name", since it didn't used to be called something different, it was named something different. Recipients list: Rémi Mathis: Missing period. Also maybe consider briefly elaborate on the situation - mention how he was the chairperson of the project Wikimedia France? Farhad Fatkullin: This part has kind of confused me. "He is a community organizer among Russia's minority languages communities, beyond his native Tatar language." Are you saying that he has done a lot of contributions to different wikipedias of Russia's minority languages, like Tatar. If so, what are the other languages? (Or is the "community organizer" role something thats outside of Wikipedia?) What does the end of this section mean "wider movement after years of isolation?" Whose "years of isolation" are you referring to, Fatkullin's? The people who speak the languages that he advocated for? This section in general needs clarification. The second line might sound better as "His fluency in English helped bridge communities and established a wider..." Mizouni: Why is it important that the organization is "non-governmental"? Are you referring to the fact the government of Tunisia owns most companies or is perhaps non-profit what you meant to say? Honorable mentions A lot of the entries need periods, please double check everyone. Satdeep Gil: Link "Indic-language." Mardetanha: "Arm" may be an odd word to use here. Atanassova: Was this contest just on (or primarily) the Bulgarian Language wikipedia? Should mention and link if so. Gómez: "Colombian student who has been prosecuted," change to "who was." Sultan: What is OTRS? Was he managing Wikimedia accounts for the Bengali wikimedia? References Ref 1 Needs author Ref 5 Needs author Ref 12 (and 17) I would add Website=Youtube or something Ref 14 Needs author Ref 17 it looks like this one was a collabritive article by the people who run the cite, but consider putting "Science Alert Staff" as the author. General Not 100% about the linking rules on this (so I would look into it) but consider linking countries when you mention them. I'm a little concerned about the mixing of past and present tense: For example for Temple-Wood and Stephenson-Goodknight you say "had created" and "had improved" but for Nartey you say "adds content" and "leads several initiatives." I don't think the former two editors have stopped editing, so these inconsistencies should be addressed, perhaps with general rephrasing of the lines "Nartey received the award for his addition of content about his home country, Ghana, and leading of several initiatives to promote the importance of editing Wikipedia. - Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC) @Aza24: - notes which are not complete sentences (e.g. most of the honorable mentions) do not need periods (WP:CAPFRAG) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Hi Aza24, I believe all of this is addressed except for the Formerly Called issue because I used "name= Wikipedian of the Year" and it renders as "Formerly Called". Thanks for the comments. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Looks great now! Im happy to support - Aza24 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Support - My concerns were addressed so I'm happy to support this list. Aza24 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Aza24! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 21:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts

• The fact that the main article is titled "Winners of Wikipedia’s biggest award still haven’t received prize money" but it isn't mentioned it weird. This shouldn't be a puff piece and it feels like we are pulling our punches
• WMF press releases aren't high quality sources
• The Harvard Government School source is a press release
• The youtube video should be a better source
• A bunch of sources are missing bylines

I'm slightly unsure if this should redirect to Wikimania if we can't cite everything with secondary sources --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Guerillero, I have made the changes you suggested. Some of the sources can be used as a primary source and I have added new sources. According to this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedian of the Year (2nd nomination), the list is notable. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose on sourcing and NPOV grounds. This needs to be sourced to something better than PR blogs from the WMF, Russkiy Mir, and Creative Commons. Further there are still inconsistencies in the citations and tweets being used as citations. On the NPOV front, the lead is devoid of any criticism while relying on a piece titled titled "Winners of Wikipedia’s biggest award still haven’t received prize money." --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Guerillero, I have cut down the use of WMF sources. Also, I have fixed the issues raised above. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I only noted one thing:

• "She started to creating articles to "better represent women and people of colour"." —-> That should be "started to create" or "started in order to create".

That’s about it. ~ HAL333 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi HAL333, I have made the amendments you suggested. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you HAL333! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Another Believer! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

;Comments from MWright96 All images are lacking alt text per MOS:ALT Done. Ukrainan Wikipedia is missing a wikilink in the lead Linked. Émna Mizouni doesn't have an acute accent to begin her name Fixed. Wikilink government of Kazakhstan Linked. "Mathis, a chairman of Wikimédia France and the French Wikipedia administrator who received the honor for his role" - a comma is missing between "adminstrator" and "who" Added. Wikilink Women in Red to its own Wikipedia article Linked. "and leading of several initiatives to promote the importance of editing Wikipedia." - the word "of" isn't needed Removed. "an editing campaign and youth camp, a project to help new editors in Armenia." - an editing campaign and youth camp project to aid new editors of Armenia. Replaced. "Mizouni joined with several others to found Carthagina, in 2013." - This is an almost word-to-word copy from the WMF reference. Please change the wording to correct this Done. "including the first WikiArabia conference," - inaugural Replaced. "She also joined the Affiliations Committee in 2016 and became its vice-chair in 2018." - This is a word-to-word copy from the WMF reference. Please alter the sentence to rectify this Done. "He was awarded for encouraging people at his university to edit the Punjabi Wikipedia made it the fastest-growing Indic-language Wikipedia that year." - to edit the Punjabi Wikipedia, making it Done. "Over 120 editors joined the contest and third of the editors have completed it." - maybe reword this sentence to avoid close repetition of the word "editors" Done. "like legislation that makes it almost impossible to get funding. He also serves the global community as a steward and OTRS, a team of volunteers who answer emails sent to Wikipedia, member and co-managed several social media accounts for the Wikimedia movement (e.g. FB Wikimedia Commons)." - Can't locate this information in the WMF source. You'll need to use or find another reliable source that backs up the information in this portion of text Done. "Wade, a physicist who started a year-long effort to put underrepresented scientists and engineers on Wikipedia." - This sentence would be better off rewritten without losing its intended meaning to pass WP:LIMITED "She started to create articles to" - how about began to write articles to to avoid close parahrasing? Replaced. Reference 22 is missing the author Added The tage for Reference 24 needs to be addressed ASAP MWright96, I am sorry but I don't understand this one. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Support - All my concerns have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you MWright96! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Guerillero: Us FLC closers could use some input on whether your objections have been addressed to your satisfaction. A couple of the sites you described as unreliable don't appear to be in the article at the moment, and the number of WMF sources has been reduced, if not eliminated (I count four). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Giants2008, I believe that the WMF can be used as a primary source. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I am going to take another look tonight --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support on sources Source review
This FLC is listed at the FLC page as needing a source review so here goes:

• Ref 1 (The prize money article) states that in 2012 the award was named the "Jimbo award" so the award wasn't always called "Wikimedian of the Year".

They are referring to this. But it wasn't an official name.

• Ref 2 (kyiv post) - that URL is not completely loading for me - perhaps it is an issue on my end but the linkage needs to be investigated.

It seems to be loading for me.

• Ref 4/5: pass
• Ref 3&6: are in languages I do not speak so AGF
• Ref 7/8: pass
• Ref 9: Is listed as a Cite web but shouldn't it be a Cite video? And the video itself lasts 15 minutes - is there a way to cite the specific timestamps that back up Ref 9?

Added a new source

• Ref 10/11/12/13/14: pass
• Ref 15: AGF, in a language I do not speak
• Ref 16/17/18: pass
• Ref 19: Is a link to a video and uses the cite web template. This should probably be a cite web and have time-stamps that deal directly with the information that is being backed up.

Added

• Ref 20/21: pass
• Ref 22: This link does not mention Wikimedian of the Year. It states the award was "Positive Wikimedian of the Year."

Added a new source

• Ref 23/24: pass

Once the few issues mentioned above are dealt with or explained I will be able to Support on Source review. Shearonink (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @Shearonink:, I believe that I have addressed your comments. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Support on sources. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Shearonink! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero never came back, but it appears that their issues were addressed, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC) [2].

---

WCW Light Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE ^X 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the third time's the charm for this one, which was archived after drawing no responses on its previous two candidacies. It's another short-lived pro-wrestling championship from the early 1990s. I'm aware that there's a degree of overlap between this and List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions, but this is a more thorough look at a separate entity which is only in hindsight considered one and the same with the latter so I don't believe that's going to be an issue. The article was given a copy-editing tag-team by Zppix and Baffle gab1978, and follows the same layout as the FL WCW International World Heavyweight Championship. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. GRAPPLE ^X 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• As the opening paragraph is only one sentence, I would merge it with the next one
• "WWE, who purchased WCW's assets in 2001" => "WWE, which purchased WCW's assets in 2001"
• "Morton and Pillmen contested" - typo
• "Pillman successfully defended the championship against Tom Zenk at the May 17 WrestleWar event in Jacksonville, Florida; before being defeated" - that semi-colon should be a comma
• "would depict any maneuver performed from the top rope of the ring as illegal and resulting in disqualification; this effectively ended the appeal of the light heavyweight style" - I don't think it's quite right to say it ended the appeal of the style, as the style would still have been appealing but essentially wasn't allowed to be used. I would say "effectively ended the viability of the light heavyweight style"
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look. I've addressed anything you have raised here. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias talk 10:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias The crossover is with List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions (1991–2007) and WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007), rather than the List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions article you linked, as far as I can tell. I appreciate your comment that it "is only in hindsight considered one and the same". But our current articles treat them the same, and I struggle to see why the prose and brackets can't be merged into WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007), especially given the current short length of that article, while the list entries are already provided at List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions (1991–2007). It seems to me to contravene 3(c) pretty obviously. Can you convince me otherwise? Harrias talk 12:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Ultimately no policy here would give a definitive answer on this and really boils down to which company's opinion we follow--WWE, who currently own the video rights to the content involved, or the historical WCW, who created and managed it. It seems clear to me that the intention behind the creation of the 1996 WCW Cruiserweight title was to have a clean start with a new and separate lineage, and personally I would be in favour of treating it the same way. For what it's worth I think the prose detail here on the Light Heavyweight belt would be undue if merged with the WWE list, which would then essentially have to summarise three different title lineages and explain two partially-recognised merges. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC) I have some sympathy with that approach. If that is the case though, I think Wikipedia needs to treat them as separate entities: remove them from the List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions (1991–2007) list (which is an old FL, which needs some work to meet the current standards anyway). That last can just note that the WWE also consider the earlier WCW Light Heavyweight Championship to be one and the same, but direct readers to this link for more information. Similar changes would be needed at WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007), and the titles of both would need changing to "WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1996–2007)". If we make this distinction clear on the encyclopaedia, then I think this can be considered as a standalone article. Harrias talk 15:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC) That makes sense. Some page moves would be involved (to use "1996–2007") but I assume that would be uncontroversial. I'll make a start with those two articles tonight to highlight the delineation. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 20:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC) I removed the duplicated content from the earlier list, adding a "see also" for this one. In the parent article for that list I added a hatnote and a bit of extra prose to delineate the two more clearly. I hope this helps. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 23:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Further comments "..with the inaugural champion Brian Pillman being.." Avoid noun plus -ing. "..with the seventh competitor entering.." And again. What does "pin" mean in the knockout chart? "..with masked Japanese wrestler Jushin Thunder Liger. Liger defeated.." Avoid the immediate repetition of "Liger". Otherwise nothing much of concern here. Harrias talk 08:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC) @Harrias: all addressed (hopefully) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns have been addressed. Harrias ^talk 10:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC) (Forgot to mention, but I will claim WikiCup points for this review.)

Source review by MPJ-DK

Since this FLC Is in the orange box at the top of the FLC page I am going to do a source review since it has to be completed before it can possibly be passed for FL. Note, I have my own FLC nomination if anyone wants to reciprocate (not required). Note, while I am part of the WikiCup I am not looking to claim points for the source review I'm going to do. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• 7 out of 15 sources are primary, from WWE who now owns the championship. That is almost 50%, which seems less than ideal for Featured content. Keeping in mind that WWE has a tendency to write history as they want it, which is not necessarily the same as how it happened.
• Online World of Wrestling- WP:PW/RS lists it as "unreliable" and thus needs to be replaced
• wrestling-titles.com - is generally listed as "unproven" source wise, but I know that their pre-2000 content is mainly built on the "Wrestling Title Histories" book, which is considered about as good a source for championship history as there is, so I'll say in this context that is a reliable source.
• Is there a location for the 2 book sources?
• This is where using so many wwe.com articles gets dicey - they all refer to the championship by the wrong name, proving that their "fact" aren't as factual as a Featured List requires.
• Source review oppose - Grapple X unless the above issues are addressed. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• @MPJ-DK: With the work that ChrisTheDude has done, how do you feel about the sourcing now? Harrias ^talk 12:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good now, Support MPJ-DK (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:WCW Light Heavyweight Championship.png - Fair use argument is appropriate, lines up with other championship belt images used on Wikipedia. Since the championship was abandoned in 1992 it is unlikely that a free use image of someone with the championship belt is available to use.
• File:Jushin Thunder Liger.JPG - APpropriately tagged, has been on commons since 2015 with no indicators of copyright issues

Image review Passed MPJ-DK (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Grapple X I note you haven't edited since April, if we don't get a positive response to this note in a couple of days, I'll archive this nomination. Hope all is well, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I am happy to try and get this one over the line. One WWE ref (the current number 9) is needed precisely because it references the fact that WWE re-write history to suit their needs (it supports the statement that they regard the light heavyweight champions as cruiserweight champions). I reckon I can replace the others. MPJ-DK - FYI -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude thanks Chris. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man - actually I just noticed that I already supported above. If I now attempt to complete the nom, would it invalidate my support vote (the only vote so far!!)......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably sub-optimal... but I'd rather the article was up to snuff and let the nom run for longer than have it just crash and burn. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

WWE refs replaced with the exception of one which supports the fact that they themselves report something (so this one seems valid) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

OWOW source also removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments and support from Chidgk1

As someone with no knowledge or interest in this subject but who would like to get it sorted as I see mine is the next oldest:

• Instead of "The WCW Light Heavyweight Championship is a defunct ..." why not simply say "The WCW Light Heavyweight Championship was a ...."?

• Instead of " its subsequent lineage would end" why not simply say "it ended"?

• "During this time" is confusing - should it just be deleted or is it explaining some partial time - I don't understand.

• "Among Watts' edicts was a new rule that would depict any maneuver performed from the top rope of the ring as illegal and resulting in disqualification; this effectively ended the viability of the light heavyweight style, even though the matches involved in the championship picture had been considered "outstanding" by the fans." confuses me. Does that mean the fans got bored with it after the new rule and stopped watching on TV so the advertisers pulled out? Did only that style become unviable - did the new rule not apply to the lighter weight wrestlers? Presumably the heavier ones could not jump off the top rope anyway? I realise that it is not really a sport but a kind of pre-choreographed show, but for people new to the subject it is a little confusing.

Chidgk1 (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• • Made some changes in response to your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Sigourney Weaver performances

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 05:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I figured it was time to do the filmography of a woman, and who better than the queen of sci-fi? ~ HAL333 05:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Support and comments from Chidgk1

Great idea - one of my favorite actors

• As this is a list of her performances perhaps most of the pictures should be related to one or more performances (like the pic of the theatre is), for example are there any good pics of her on a set? The pics already there are great but maybe it would be more interesting for the top pic to be different from the top pic on the Sigourney Weaver article. Also perhaps add a performance name in some pic captions if relevant. Perhaps add more pics if there are any which are good enough quality.

 Done

• Why are some of her earlier theatre roles blank?

The sources are rare, nearly nonexistent.

• In Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny did she sing or was she the announcer? Did she sing in Das Lusitania Songspiel? If she sang is her singing ability significant enough to be mentioned in the lead?

I wish I had some good sources and reviews on it, but I don't. ~ HAL333 04:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Please add "trans-title" on the foreign refs e.g. Benvenuti

 Done

• Perhaps the note in "In 2009, Weaver reteamed with James Cameron on Avatar, which became the highest grossing film of all time.[note 1]" could be integrated in some way e.g. "In 2009, Weaver reteamed with James Cameron on Avatar, which for a decade was the highest grossing film of all time."

 Done

• Should The Investigation: A Search for the Truth in Ten Acts be added?

 Done Thanks for mentioning that. I remember when they did that but I had completely forgotten it when I was writing this. ~ HAL333 04:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have time could you take a quick look at List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey and comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1. Assuming you know nothing about the subject it will be valuable if you could point out anything which is difficult to understand for a first time reader.

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

;Comments "Highest-grossing film" (currently a redlink) should point to List of highest-grossing films  Done The sorting is not correct for "Alice Goodwin" in the Role column, which currently sorts under A.  Done Madman points to a dab page. The film does not seem to have an article.  Done Is there no source that identifies the role she played in that film? Sources on her role are very thin. I think she may have just had a very minor role because IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes do not give a name for her character. ~ HAL333 04:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC) The film listed as My Depression is actually called My Depression (The Up and Down and Up of It)  Done No role is listed for her in that film. If the role is not named, then put "unnamed"  Done 1492 should sort under "fourteen"  Done If locations and roles for some of her plays are unknown, then put unknown, rather than leaving it blank  Done In the plays table you use "1984-85", "2001-2" and "2012-2013", so three different formats. The dashes also aren't all the same.  Done The notes columns on the last two tables are completely blank, so there seems no reason for them to be there  Done One publisher in the audio books table is in italics but the other two are not - any particular reason? For some reason, the article for Rabbit Ears Productions has its title in italics. I just repeated that, but I'm not sure that that is correct. Should I just get rid of the italics? ~ HAL333 04:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Think that's it from me. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC) ChrisTheDude I appreciate the advice. How should I sort "Unknown"? ~ HAL333 04:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC) I would say just under U as normal..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC) ChrisTheDude Well now I know. ~ HAL333 13:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Her role in Madman is shown as a dash, I think putting "unknown" would be better..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC) One other thing I just noticed - there are two listings for Das Lusitania Songspiel in the plays table, but the note saying that Weaver co-wrote it is against the second. It would make more sense to put it against the first -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)  Done Thanks for pointing those out. ~ HAL333 22:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 08:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Planning to claim WikiCup points for this review.) I'm not convinced that the Guardian source's few words on the topic is good enough to verify: She would reprise the role in two more sequels: Alien 3 (1992) and Alien: Resurrection (1997), both of which were not as well-received. I notice that the Rotten Tomatoes percentages for the four films in the series are based on a large number of critics and would verify this statement.  Done the Peter Weir-directed The Year of Living Dangerously (1982) – not sure if the "the" in the prose is redundant to the "The" in the title. Same point about the Ang Lee-directed The Ice Storm. Could be fixed by rephrasing (e.g. "The Year of Living Dangerously, directed by Peter Weir") but feel free to disregard if you think it's fine. I hadn't noticed that aspect - I realize how it can seem repetitive. However, other featured lists do the same and I think it’s the simplest and most streamlined way to write it. ~ HAL333 01:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC) "Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama" and the "Best Supporting Actress": is this how you'd say it in a sentence? Doesn't feel very natural. If they have common/abbreviated names, I'd consider just mentioning the films and then in the sentence "Weaver was the first actor to have two acting wins at the Golden Globes in the same year" adding the categories under their common name. Again, this one can be disregarded if you can't find a way to improve it. I tinkered with that, but it seemed less clear. When I added clarification the sentence just seemed too bulky and awkward. ~ HAL333 04:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Ridley Scott and Tim Allen don't need the link on second mention in the lead.  Done What do the slashes in entries like "Angela Nardino/Max Conners/Olga Ivanova" mean? She played multiple characters, or the character has alternate names? Would be good to explain in a footnote.  Done Would it be worth mentioning in notes when the films were animated, or musicals (e.g. My Depression is both)? Seems like a significant point about the medium.  Done Should have "1 episode" in notes for Somerset, according to the source.  Done Are you sure all the redlinks for entries in "Theatre" and "Documentaries" are plausibly notable? No issue if they are, but particularly for the old theatre roles, it seems to me like they could have been plays written for those local performances rather than well-known national plays.  Done I removed the old theatre plays - the sources are really scarce. I’ll try to make some the the doc articles. ~ HAL333 03:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Image licenses all look good, but File:Sigourney Weaver @ 2010 Academy Awards (cropped).jpg could do with a more appropriate description. Bilorv I'm a little confused on this one. I clarified that she was at the 82nd Academy Awards, but I think you might want me to change something else. She wasn't nominated for any Oscars that year, but went to support Avatar, which had several nominations. I mentioned James Cameron's nomination as she actually spoke specifically of that nomination due to her close friendship with Cameron. How would you like me too change this? ~ HAL333 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Sorry for the ambiguity, my mistake on this one. I mean the Wikimedia Commons description, The red carpet isn't alien to her. Playing off "Avatar's" vibrancy, Sigourney Weaver confidently shows some color at the 82nd Academy Awards, March 7, in Hollywood, Calif. She plays Dr. Grace Augustine in the film. Should be a more simple and factual description of the image. Perhaps it's out of jurisdiction for the FL nomination, but I feel like I've seen Commons descriptions like these appear on some browser version of an image view while still on Wikipedia. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 23:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Bilorv No, that makes perfect sense. It's  Done ~ HAL333 01:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Images should all have alt text so people using a screenreader understand what they're hearing (otherwise the text like "File:Sigourney Weaver (36017523852) (cropped).jpg" is read out verbatim). They've all got captions so something simple like |alt=refer to caption, |alt=photo or |alt=Sigourney Weaver works.  Done Again for the screenreader audience, the tables should all have captions (which can duplicate the name of the section header and use sronly so that sighted viewers don't have redundancy).  Done Hopefully I did that correctly. ~ HAL333 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC) It looks alright to me, yep. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 08:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC) (Ref numbers all from this permalink.) Ref #53 is Newsweek, yellow at WP:RSP—possibly fine, but I imagine there's better sources for such big films.  Done Ref #57 and #142 are from Metro, red at WP:RSP so definitely needs a better source.  Done Ref #59 needs a website name.  Done Ref #80's "now White" should be "Snow White".  Done Ref #87 needs a website name.  Done Ref #114 needs a date.  Done Refs #118 and #124 missing a couple of details.  Done Ref #141, IMDb, is not reliable.  Done Ref #147 could mark the language of the source (Italian?)  Done "Christopherdurang.com" or "Christopher Durang", pick one to use in refs consistently.  Done Source spotchecks: #36, #60, #65, #66, #84, #93, #101, #106, #120, #131, #145. Issues are as follows. Ref #84: seems to be the wrong ref, about Gorillas Revisited rather than Prayers for Bobby (a duplicate of the ref cited below for that entry). Ref #93 also seems to be wrong, not about Call My Agent!. Ref #145 doesn't mention Rabbit Ears, which also shouldn't be in italics (regardless of what Rabbit Ears Productions is doing).  Done

Overall, looks good for a list of this length and detail. Can't see any roles missing or any problem with the scope of the lead. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 19:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: happy with the sourcing, comprehensiveness of the list and lead, and all the details above are fixed (except two which I'm happy with the responses with). — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 08:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments – For cells containing multiple years; namely, "1984—85" (Hurlyburly row), "2001—02" (The Guys row), and "2012—13" (Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike row), you might want to use the shorter en dash instead. This will also make it consistent with the formatting in "1973–74" (Watergate Classics) and "1986–87" (The Merchant of Venice). "… one of the most significant female protagonists in cinema history, and, consequently, Weaver is considered …" The "and" sandwiched in-between two commas reads kind of awkwardly. Three alternatives you might want to consider: (1) remove the "and" + split into 2 separate sentences (starting at "Consequently"); (2) remove the "and" + use a semicolon before "consequently); or (3) remove the second comma after "and". I went with option 3. ~ HAL333 01:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC) "In 1994, she appeared in another Polanski film" – just curious, which one was the first? Might be good to wikilink his full name, since it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Thanks for pointing that out. I think I was putting Woody Allen and Polanski in the same boat. ~ HAL333 01:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Read the prose in detail – everything else looks all good. Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Bloom6132 All done. ~ HAL333 01:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support – all comments addressed. I just made one minor edit re. en dashes (–) as opposed to hyphens (-). Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. could I please trouble you to have a look at my FLC when you have the time? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 22:14, 30 July 2020 (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, 31 July 2020 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of 2009 in Romania

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all required criteria. I have written it in a similar style to List of Romanian Top 100 number ones and List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s, which I have already promoted to FL status. Comments are appreciated :) Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

*There should be an image in the lead. You could move the Black Eyed Peas picture up there and put a different one next to the radio table. "has been weekly publishing the top ten most broadcast Romanian and foreign songs on Romanian radio stations and television channels" => "has been publishing the top ten most-broadcast Romanian and foreign songs on Romanian radio stations and television channels on a weekly basis" (note the hyphen needed in most-broadcast to match the title) "year-end charts in regards to the radio airplay, listing the most broadcast Romanian songs of the respective year integrated with official audience numbers provided by Asociația pentru Radio Audiență (Romanian Association for Audience Numbers)" - I don't understand this bit. Do you mean that the year-end chart is weighted based on how many listeners each station has? They do some sort of calculations with those audience numbers (for each radio stations), so that they get the total of unique listeners of a song. Any idea on how to rewrite the sentence so that this is clearer to the reader? Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "In that year, around ten singles each" - just give the actual numbers "have been listed as the most-broadcast ones" => "were listed as most-broadcast" ""I Gotta Feeling" by The Black Eyed Peas" => ""I Gotta Feeling" by the Black Eyed Peas" "this feat was jointly achieved by Edward Maya and Vika Jigulina's "Stereo Love" and Dan Bălan's "Chica Bomb" with five weeks each" - not true, the latter song spent six weeks at number one Whoops, this was my mistake. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "The Black Eyed Peas' (pictured) "I Gotta Feeling"" - no need to say "(pictured)", because obviously it's the Black Eyed Peas pictured given that they are the only people mentioned in the caption Are there are any independent sources about these charts? Currently literally every reference is from the official site of the organisation that publishes them. Sadly, I could not find any other sources for 2009. However, there are some for the 2010s article by România Liberă. Media Forest is definitely reliable and also provides data for Airplay 100, Romania's national chart. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your comments, I have addressed or responded to them. Also I have revised parts of the lead and some image descriptions, I do think they need another check. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC) One more comment: "Media Forest also releases year-end charts in regards to the radio airplay, listing the most broadcast Romanian songs of the respective year" - do you mean the most-broadcast songs in Romania, or only the most-broadcast songs by Romanians? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I have reworded it to be clearer. Is it better now? And also -- does anything else need to be fixed? Greets and thanks for the comments; Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Having looked at the source, I think "weighted by" rather than "ranked by" would be the best wording -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Is there anything else that you think requires fixing? Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• I've just checked ref 7, and it lists two number ones for each week, one Romanian and one international. It might be worth mentioning this in the article and clarifying that the songs listed here are the most-broadcast overall...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I have added a sentence to clarify that. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I am never a fan of prose saying "this article lists....." - that's pretty much the same as starting with "This is a list of....", which has been deprecated for years. I think it might be better to have a symbol indicating whether the song was Romanian or foreign. You could have an additional couple of rows in the key saying "Song topped the Romanian song listing and was the most-broadcast song overall" and the equivalent for foreign -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the suggestion, I really think it's a great solution actually. However, I chose to not color the cells for those other key rows since then, the table would be colored all the way and it'd be exhausting to see. Plus, the song of the year is Romanian, so it'd need two colors. I'm aware this list may be a little complicated to understand, so I revised the lead a tiny bit: "Media Forest has been publishing 'four rankings which list' the top ten most-broadcast Romanian and foreign songs on Romanian...". Do you think that is a good solution? Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I have always been told to avoid using fixed image sizes (i.e. the 200px for the Black Eyed Peas image) so I would remove that.
• For this part, (In that year, eight and 11 singles were listed by Media Forest), I would say "In 2009" instead, and I would either represent both numbers through words or numerals, but having a combination of both in one sentence looks rather odd to me.
• I agree with ChrisTheDude's most recent comment above.
• The break used for the "featuring Nicole Scherzinger" part of the chart looks rather odd to me in some views. Is the break completely necessary for any reason?

Good work with the list. Once everything is addressed, I will support this for promotion. I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I think I have addressed everything here. Thanks for the comments; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I support this nomination for promotion. Thank you for addressing everything. I very much appreciate all of the work you have done on Wikipedia about Romanian music. It is very inspiring. I have been quite obsessed with Inna's single "Sober", though I still love listening to the whole Yo album. Sorry as that is off-topic, but just wanted to express that to you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you very much for your comments and the support. I guess I just like Romanian music and rankings ahah. And Inna's releasing a lot of EDM tracks lately, kinda getting back to her roots. There's a new one called "Nobody" that you should definitely check out. All the best to you; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. It is crazy how much music she is releasing lately, but I've been enjoying it lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from MarioSoulTruthFan

Resolved comments from MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

*The note should have a source for it, I need to verify such information David Deejay and Dony reached number one on the 2009 ranking with "So Bizarre". → second paragraph, if in the first you are explaining how the chart works and on the second are the "record breakers" then move it. I do understand this is making a point to the latter sentence. I agree, but the sentence before that I'm explaining how the year-end charts are made and the fact that they are being released too. I think it's be unnecessary to add the second sentence, mentioning who topped the 2009 year-end chart, into the second paragraph. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC) But isn't that the point of the second paragraph? Mentioning who spent the most weeks and achived the number one spot? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC) @MarioSoulTruthFan: Is it good now? Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC) respective year weighted → respective year, weighted radio and television respectively. → radio and television, respectively. The user before you has done a copyedit and removed the comma here. I guess there's multiple ways to write the sentence, I'll just let it stand the way it stands now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Fine by me. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC) So the list didn't started in January but around July, right? This should be mentioned in the lead. Nice job, let me know once you address my comments. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC) @MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you so much for the comments, I have addressed them apart from a few exceptions. I'll get to your GA review very soon. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 22:14, 30 July 2020 (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, 31 July 2020 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Major League Baseball players with a home run in their first major league at bat

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other baseball lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

;Comments "One hundred twenty-five different players" - being British I would say "One hundred and twenty-five different players", but I believe this is valid usage in American English? Agreed – added "and" in between. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Ernie Koy and Heinie Mueller were the first players to hit home runs in their first at bats in the same game" - this reads a bit oddly to me, although I am struggling to summarise why. It might be better wording as something like "The game between Brooklyn Dodgers and Philadelphia Phillies on Opening Day in 1938 was the first in which two players hit home runs in their first at bats...." and then detail who they were I usually prefer putting the subject (i.e. the players) as close to the start of the sentence. I think it reads bizarrely because of the two "in"s in close proximity (i.e. "in their first at bats in the same game"). But I will change it to your suggested wording if it makes it easier for reading. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Bob Nieman and Keith McDonald proceeded to hit another home run in their second at bat" - I think "Bob Nieman and Keith McDonald each proceeded to hit another home run in his second at bat" would be better Agreed – changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I would move the ref for Gaetti's 360 to the end of the sentence, it looks a little odd where it is Agreed – moved. I've also sandwiched the number in-between commas instead of en-dashes (as I had done in List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leaders) – hope that looks better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Note B - "in top of the 2nd inning" => "in the top of the 2nd inning" Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Note H - "because he had already faced 5 pitches" => "because he had already faced five pitches" Changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: thanks for the feedback! I hope they've been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC) The Koy and Mueller bit remains unchanged. I think I have put my finger on what reads oddly to me about it - "Ernie Koy and Heinie Mueller were the first players to hit home runs in their first at bats in the same game" could be interpreted to mean that never before had two players both homered the first time they came up to bat within that particular game. Does that make sense.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: yes, it does make sense – thanks for explaining it from that angle. I've reworded the sentence to read: "Ernie Koy and Heinie Mueller were the first players to accomplish the feat in the same game, doing so for the …" How does that sound? —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Can take this later in the day. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• File:Tyler Austin on September 8, 2016.jpg, File:Aaron Judge on September 8, 2016.jpg, File:Garyga.jpg, File:Daniel Nava on July 15, 2010.jpg, File:Adam Wainright.jpg need personality rights templates at the Commons.

• Not a big deal to me because someone reviewed it but the source of File:Daniel Nava on July 15, 2010.jpg is dead. Can you try to archive?

• I can see that File:Adam Wainright.jpg is OK but Commons:Template:Flickrreview should be added to the Commons page for a reviewer or an admin to review, or a bot.

• Not required but would suggest archiving the source for File:1898 Michael Griffin.jpeg and File:Hoyt-wilhelm.jpg

• Although MLB was founded in its current iteration in 1903, statistics from the National League, American League and American Association that were recorded before that year have been retroactively recognized as major league. Do you have a source for this? Who recognizes them as major league? I'm surprised the Players' League isn't in this although they were found by MLB to be a major league in 1968 (see Lewis).

• No source required per FL List of Major League Baseball players with a .400 batting average in a season (promoted in 2017). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• One hundred and twenty-five different players have hit a home run in their first at bat of a Major League Baseball (MLB) game to date I think "to date" isn't how we're supposed to demarcate time, try using Template:As of

• Again, permissible under FL List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leaders (promoted April 2020). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Both players are recognized by whom?

• Major League Baseball. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• their first and their last major league at bat. not sure we need the second their.

• Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Paul Gillespie and John Miller perhaps add "first baseman" to John Miller ie first baseman John Miller to differentiate Miller from the pitcher or Ox Miller.

• Brackets are not included in prose text unless more than one person of the same name is mentioned. This is not the case here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Paul Gillespie and John Miller are the only players to hit a home run in both their first and their last major league at bat.[12][13] Those were the only home runs that Miller ended up hitting during his stint in the MLB I think you can combine these with a semicolon

• That would take the word count to 42. I prefer not to go over 30 words in a sentence. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Another user merged the two sentences, but dropped the total word count to 36 by rephrasing. I've kept that change. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• On the other hand, Gary Gaetti, with 360, hit more home runs perhaps "has hit". As of when?

• Not necessary, because an FL is supposed to be up to date per WP:FLCR. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Indicates the player was a pitcher maybe "Indicates the player was primarily a pitcher", certainly could have played other positions in career.

• Doesn't matter if he could have played other positions in career. What matters here is the position he played in this specific game (which is what this symbol covers).

• Indicates the home run was hit on the first career pitch of the pitcher or of the batter?

• Of course the batter. Otherwise this list would've been titled "List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have given up a home run in their first major league at bat". —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Indicates the home runs were hit in consecutive at bats could be more specific for which home runs, ie first in a plate appearance if I'm implying right.

• First home runs in an at bat (not plate appearance, which include walks, HBPs, sac flies, etc.). Should I re-word to "… home runs were hit in consecutive first at bats"? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Player is active as of what season?

• As of the most recent season. Again, not necessary, because an FL is supposed to be up to date. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure note E is essential, ie the Red Stocking switched leagues a few times but we don't note that on Tebeau.

• I still think it's best to clarify the league switch. I don't want some editor down the line who wasn't aware of the league switch changing it to AL thinking that I had gotten it wrong. I can change it to a hidden comment if you think that'll be better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Have you looked for the times for the box scores for Tebeau and Griffin?

• The box scores are not available. Here are the links from Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference.com to prove it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I will oppose for now due to the lack of inclusion of the Players' League in these stats even though the PL was a major league. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood: I've addressed some of your comments. The others – I'll leave it to the FL director or his delegates to decide whether they pertain to FL criteria (many of them don't, in my humble opinion). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The exclusion of the PL in this list goes against 3A. Some of the comments (ie "That would take the word count to 42. I prefer not to go over 30 words in a sentence") amount to IDONTLIKEIT. Files' personality rights should be added per 5B. My oppose to the list stands. Will not comment further. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood: "Will not comment further" Good – as I said above, I'll leave it to the FL director or his delegates to decide whether they pertain to FL criteria. And FYI, DONTLIKEIT is an essay (not policy or guideline) that applies to deletion discussions, which this isn't. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood: The FL delegate and another editor have both stated that excluding the PL is fine and does not contravene FL criteria. I've done my best to address most of your remaining concerns. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Umm, "Major League Baseball" is capitalized, which means that it refers to players in the leagues collectively known as Major League Baseball (MLB), and not to other leagues which are considered by historians to be "major leagues", such as the Pioneer League. For this reason, Therapyisgood's complaint is baseless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Giants2008 and PresN: I'm leaning towards pulling the plug on this one and nominating afresh. I feel this is being opposed on grounds that are beyond the scope of FL criteria. Frankly, some of the comments are bordering on absurd and have never been demanded of me in all my previous 24 successful FLCs (including 4 promoted this year). I, of course, assume good faith, given the fact that the reviewer only started editing in November 2019 and may not be all that familiar with the FLC process. However, the fact that they took me to ANI citing "General dickishness" (which was rightly SNOWCLOSE'd 17 minutes later) reinforces my belief as to the ridiculousness of these comments. What do you guys think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, a couple points:

• Starting with content: to hit the big one off the bat, I feel that since this list is explicitly for "MLB", not "major league" baseball, that it's okay that it covers the leagues that became MLB and not the "major" leagues that did not. Might be nice to expand that note to mention why NL, AL, and AA are included (because they formed the MLB), but you don't need to add the Player's League.

• Expanded note. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not wanting to go over 30 words per sentence is... unusual, but as long as everything is grammatically correct there's nothing wrong with not wanting to join concepts with a semicolon.

• Another user merged the two sentences, but dropped the total word count to 36 by rephrasing. I've kept that change. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not content: "I don't have to do this because I didn't have to in a prior FL" is not a valid argument. A successful FLC is an indication that reviewers didn't have a problem with something; it doesn't mean that you are exempt from editors asking questions in the future. It's completely reasonable to ask for a source for a statement even if it was unsourced in prior FLs- if you don't think it needs to be sourced, explain why. As someone who also has a large FL series I know it can be frustrating to have a concern raised on something that has been fine for years and a dozen lists, but sometimes it happens and sometimes it's valid. FLs aren't perfect.
• Please don't dismiss reviewers' concerns due to reasons outside of those concerns (e.g. because of their "newness" or ANI drama)- if the concerns are valid/invalid, they are such regardless of whatever else is going on with that user. --PresN 15:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@PresN: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed your first point and the second point got resolved by another editor who improved the sentence by merging and rephrasing. I've also addressed most of the reviewer's other comments, but I feel the rest (i.e. re images) is beyond my expertise. Should I withdraw this nom? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I added the templates they asked for; unable to archive the source for the one image. --PresN 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Director comment – @Bloom6132: Sorry I didn't get back to you before. I see that Pres has given you some assistance. If you still want me to withdraw the nom, let me know and I'll close it over the weekend, when I do my next batch of closures (assuming Pres or TRM don't get around to it first). If not, I'd be happy to let it run, as it hasn't been open for too long and could use more time for a consensus to develop one way or the other (especially on the Players League issue). Regarding the image, I'd treat it like we normally handle Flickr images. If it was reviewed in good faith while the link was alive and the photo isn't an obvious copyvio the reviewer missed, my inclination would be to say that the image is okay for use. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: thanks and no worries! I think I'll let this nom run and see how consensus develops. Hopefully that'll give the reviewer a reasonable amount of time to revisit the feedback they gave. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• You could add "both" after George Tebeau and Mike Griffin in the lede

• Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence On the other hand, Gary Gaetti, with 360, hit more home runs than any other player to hit one in their first at bat. seems awkward, mainly in the way it refers to home-runs. I can’t think of a better way to reword it, and it’s not absolutely necessary, but I think it could be improved.

• I've put the home run total within brackets – hope that works better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Nice job on the notes - they’re really extensive.

That’s all I noticed right now. ~ HAL333 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: thanks for the comments! I hope they've been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 23:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

Resolved comments from Harrias talk 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

* Note A: "Although MLB was founded in its current iteration in 1903, statistics from the National League, American League and American Association that were recorded before that year have been retroactively recognized as major league. This is because the aforementioned three leagues went on to form MLB." requires a reference. Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Ref #2 does not support Zack Collins's home run being the most recent, just that it happened. Already supported by the Baseball Almanac general reference (first one in the section). Normally, MLB.com would updated their article on the accomplishment, and I would've cited it as an inline ref if they had done so (like I did in List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leaders). We'll just have to make do with Baseball Almanac in this case. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC) "..with Kouzmanoff and Nava doing so.." Avoid Noun plus -ing. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC) "..their first-at bat home run.." No need for the hyphen here. Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Are ^ and ¢ accessible symbols? Consider either using letters, or other accessible symbols such as ↑ if not. Replaced with accessible symbols ↑ and . —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC) The last sentence "These requirements leave 18 players ineligible who are active, 1 player (Mike Napoli) ineligible who is living and has played in the past five seasons, and 75 players ineligible who did not play in 10 seasons." needs a reference, to avoid it appearing like OR or SYNTH. Unfortunately, there isn't a single source that references the entirety of that statement (espc. since this is transient info with retirements and players reaching the 5+ season mark every year). And this has been fine in all my previous 17 baseball FLs. I could add a footnote at the end (like in the table key of Tip O'Neill Award and List of Major League Baseball single-inning strikeout leaders) stating something to the effect of: "The Baseball-Reference.com profiles of each player verifies their active status and service time". I could also list out all 75 players and inline cite each of them (yes, I actually went through their bios checking # of seasons played and compiled the list), but that could make for the longest footnote ever.—Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC) It is fine to include unreferenced information in the lead if it is presented in the table, but in this case you are using information not present in the table (the length of career and retirements). I'd be interested in some input from the @FLC director and delegates: Harrias talk 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC) At a minimum, that should have a footnote saying the information is verified by the Baseball-Reference pages. Personally, I'd be inclined to remove the sentence, given that it is currently unverified, hard to source properly, and isn't really essential to the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Added footnote. @Harrias: hope you can have a look at this to see that your remaining comments have been addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC) What does "was hit on the first career pitch" mean? Means the player hit a home run on the very first pitch they faced in their MLB career. Everyone else received up to 3 balls and 2 strikes beforehand. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Could you either make this more explicit, or add a footnote to explain it? Harrias talk 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC) @Harrias: Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's it from me. I will claim WikiCup points for this review, and would appreciate if you would consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/PCA Young Player of the Year/archive1 if you get a chance. Harrias ^talk 09:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: thanks for the feedback! I hope they've been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support my concerns have been resolved, and I'm happy that this meets the FLC criteria. Harrias ^talk 07:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Giants2008 and PresN: in addition to giving input on Harrias' last unresolved comment, could I please trouble one of you to give this a dedicated source review? (if you are of the opinion that this is close to passing) Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability of the references looks fine to me. One small formatting issue sticks out: ref 2 could use a page number, if one is available, for verifiability. If it's one of the more recent Google Books links that doesn't include the page numbers, including the chapter name in the cite would work fine for me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Google Books doesn't have a preview of either the page numbers or chapters. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• In that case, is a replacement that is more easily verifiable for the readers possible? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't come across any. If I did, I would've used it instead. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't like the missing page number, but going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 22:14, 30 July 2020 (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, 31 July 2020 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1966

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There are now 47 of these country number ones lists at WP:FL, so here is the possible #48. In 1966, David Houston had a lengthy run in the top spot - the artist who would achieve the next run of the same length was at this point still 23 years away from being born....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• The sentence "The next unbroken run at number one of this length would not occur until 2012." seems somewhat awkward, particularly the two prep phrases at the beginning. I understand that you were trying to diversify it from the Taylor Swift sentence in the third paragraph. It's not a big deal, but reworking it couldn’t hurt.
  • Not sure what you mean by "the two prep phrases at the beginning" - which bit is that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I meant the two prepositional phrases "at number one of this length". Looking at it again, the change isn’t really necessary. I made it before I had my morning coffee. ~ HAL333 23:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I know that feeling :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• This one is really just a suggestion. Since this is a pretty big series of articles, why not add the ability to switch from one year to the next. I’m not sure what this is called, but it’s the arrows at the bottom of the info box, as at 91st Academy Awards.
  • That is something I have thought of myself, but the issue there would seem to be that these articles don't have infoboxes, and it would look a little odd to have just that bit floating in isolation above or below the lead image...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Good point ~ HAL333 23:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Could you add the songs you’re referring to in the last two captions? ~ HAL333 23:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @HAL333: done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Another great article, really had to stretch to find anything. ~ HAL333 14:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments – In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, a table caption should be included. However, I think this quote by PresN applies to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of " "In 1965 Arnold had gained his first number one for ten years" – should it instead be "in ten years"? Read the prose in detail – everything else looks all good. Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC) @Bloom6132: - caption added. WRT the Arnold quote, I am British and here we would say "for ten years" in that sentence, but on the assumption that "in ten years" is the American English equivalent, I have changed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support – all comments addressed. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support — Nice work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 22:14, 30 July 2020 (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, 31 July 2020 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Cardiff City F.C. internationals

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The latest Cardiff City F.C. related list I've been working on. As far as I'm aware, no other internationals list has been promoted to FL status, so there's no basic template to follow but I think I've matched the standard up to previous promotions. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• Five pretty short paragraphs looks too many - suggest merging some
• "Jimmy Blair became the first Cardiff player from outside Wales" - maybe say "the first Cardiff player to represent a country other than Wales", as earlier players may have been from outside Wales (in terms of place of birth) but played for Wales
• "Alf Sherwood became the club's highest capped international player in the decade following the end of the Second World War" - this reads like he was the highest capped player in that decade specifically. I presume that is not what you mean?
• "Five Cardiff players were selected in the nation's 23-man squad for the competition, Colin Baker....." - comma before the first name should be a colon
• "Tony Vidmar became the first Cardiff player from outside the British Isles" - similar comment to above
• "Chris Gunter is the youngest ever Cardiff player" - think the word "ever" is unnecessary
• Think that's it on the lead, will look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the table

• Refs => Ref (as no row has more than one ref)
• Kim Bo-Kying's surname is Kim, so I would have thought he should sort under K
• Note a is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
• Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I've amended all of the points above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You've changed the Kim Bo-Kyung link to Bo-Kyung Kim, which is a redlink. I don't think you need to change how his name is shown, you just need to make it so that it sorts under K...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ooops, amended that now. Kosack (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Any chance that you could pop back and look at this one; an explicit support from you (if your concerns have been met) would give this the minimum three it needs. Harrias ^talk 12:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Humblest apologies, I thought I had already supported. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment These "club's internationals" lists seems a little off to me. They're almost like the "club's foreign players" lists we deleted earlier, except they also include some domestic players. Plus, footballers get called up by their national team for various reasons besides club performance if that is what is supposed to be implied in the list. That's just my best guess to be honest. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what relevance that has here really, international lists have been through AfD in the past and have remained. If you think they should be deleted, you need to start a new discussion somewhere. I'm not sure why that should stop me trying to get this promoted. Kosack (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments I don't recall having reviewed a list of this nature before, and I'm curious about the title. In my mind it should probably be "List of international footballers who played for Cardiff City F.C." or something. My concern is "internationals" has no bounds, and certainly in the good ol' days, international footballers were good all-round sportsmen and played international cricket as well. And interestingly, you note a nuance in the table caption, these are "full" internationals and not lower-level (e.g. U-21s) internationals... Certainly, as I noted above, this is probably the first list of this kind to come to FLC. The other comparables in Category:Lists of association football players by club in England use either internationals, international players and international footballers. Personally the players is probably the one I'd prefer. Thoughts on any of those options? Kosack (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC) I think my personal preference in there would be "List of Cardiff City F.C. international footballers". And there needs a hefty caveat saying these are only full internationals right from the get-go. But it's worth waiting for others to chip in rather than just go with my ideas! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC) " a Welsh professional association football club based in Cardiff, Wales. " not sure you need to clarify Cardiff is in Wales really. - Removed "Cardiff City Football Club is a Welsh professional association football club based in Cardiff, Wales. The club ..." count the "club"s... - Removed "when he played Scotland later " played for Scotland. - Fixed And against whom? - Added What makes http://nifootball.blogspot.com/ a reliable source? NIFG was challenged a few years ago, the resulting discussion was pretty conclusive on its reliability. Kosack (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC) " a World Cup during" could link generic FIFA World Cup here. - Added "won at least one international cap " this is where you need to be more descriptive I think: at least one full* [i.e. senior cap] international association football cap...?> - Reworded Intl. Years -> Intl. years - Fixed Could note Kenwyne is top international scorer? - Added "Kim Bo-Kyung" appears to be Kim Bo-kyung. - Fixed Convert all ISBN to consistent format (at ISBN.org's coverter). Ref 8 is the same as ref 3. - Fixed Ref 43 has no accessdate. - Fixed That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review. I've responded to each of your comments above, let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support my comments addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review from Harrias – pass

I will claim WikiCup points for the review.

• "Davies, Gareth M; Garland, Ian (1991)." is included in the Bibliography, but not used.

  As part of note b, it's one of the sources used to provide the statistics for the table. Kosack (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #3 cites "Hayes 2002", is this meant to be "Hayes, Dean P. (2004)"? - Fixed
• What makes the website "Northern Ireland Footballing Greats" a reliable source?

  TRM also brought this site up above, here is a link to a discussion over its inclusion. I think there were further discussions somewhere along the same lines that considered it reliable, I can try and dig these up too if you need them. Kosack (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'm not that convinced by an 11-year-old discussion that never really addressed the specifics of WP:RS. In this case, delving a bit deeper, I can't see that the source provided actually backs up the statement that "Goalkeeper Tom Farquharson remains the only Cardiff player to have appeared for two international sides, having represented both Ireland and the Irish Free State in the 1920s." It does say that he played for both Ireland and the Irish Free State, but I don't see where it says that he was the only Cardiff player to have appeared for two international sides. If the source is only being used to establish that he played for both Ireland and the Irish Free State, we have much higher quality sources which also say that, such as this or this. Harrias ^talk 07:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've replaced NIFG if you're not comfortable with the source. You're right about the info too, I should have repeated another ref there to cover that. Amended now. Kosack (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why is "Holt, Nick (2014)" included in the specific references, rather than the bibliography? A page number needs including for this source.

  When a book is referencing a single fact, I tend to just include it as a specific red rather than list it in the bibliography. Unfortunately, as it's from Google Book, I don't have a page number. Kosack (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  As the link goes straight to the page, it isn't too much of an issue; but the URL gives a page identifier: &pg=PT123. Harrias ^talk 07:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Wow, that's a handy tip! Cheers. Kosack (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #9, Bleacher Report should be the work, not the publisher. - Fixed
• Ref #29 has a typo in the date: "2 Mayb2020". - Fixed

That's it from me on the sourcing. I will aim to complete a full article review at some point too. Harrias ^talk 11:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Harrias: Sorry for my late replies here. Amended or responded to all these points now, thanks for taking a look. Kosack (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Nice work on this, I'm happy that the sourcing meets the FLC requirements. Harrias ^talk 08:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments – I noticed a few of the items that Harrias pointed out and won't repeat them, but these are other small issues I found: Is "from outside British Isles" meant to be "from outside the British Isles"? Kenwyne Jones is misspelled in the lead, which is laid bare by the red link. Instead of having a plain "List" section heading. why not try "Players" or "Internationals". The Jay Bothroyd caption has a "represented" that needs fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC) @Giants2008: Thanks for taking a look, amended these points now. Kosack (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:14, 30 July 2020 (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) 00:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC) [8].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Lithuania

Nominator(s): Tone 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I am continuing to work toward the sites in Northern Europe as a featured topic. There are four sites in Lithuania at the moment, with two more on the tentative list. I think the article is ready. Tone 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• As a side note, Estonia and Latvia are probably too short to transform into the FLs at the moment (I remember opposition in this regard when nominating List of World Heritage Sites in North Macedonia) but because of the tentative sites and maps they still deserve separate articles. With Iceland's nomination getting good support, Lithuania and Sweden in a while should therefore be the last from the batch. --Tone 18:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments – Seems a bit out of place to have a single-sentence paragraph (i.e. the second one re tentative list). Would recommend merging with the only other paragraph. For accessibility per MOS:DTT, replace all the asterisks with the {{asterisk}} template (or any other accessible symbol like {{dagger}}, {{double-dagger}}, {{&}}, {{Number sign}}, etc.) Replace the comma in-between "transnational" and "the Curonian Spit" with either a en-dash (–) or a semicolon. Same thing for "fortifications" and "the well-preserved Trakai" – either an en-dash or a semicolon in-between. Missing "The" before "Curonian Spit" in its description. "The northern part of the Spit is in Lithuania, while the southern part is …" Read the prose in detail – looks all good. Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text. I do have to admit, a list of 6 total items does appear a bit on the short side. If there's subsequent consensus here that this is solid enough to stand on its own (with no appropriate list to merge it with), then I'll do a fuller review and/or vote in support. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support (from Neutral) – all comments addressed. Changed to support in light of the lack of objection from other reviewers below for this to be a standalone list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, several articles with 4 items on the list have been already promoted to FLs. Slovenia, Montenegro, Albania, Malta, for example. So I am considering this kind of the bottom limit for such articles. There is an article List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe which is too long, badly maintained, and does not cover the tentative sites in detail, so I do not see merging as an option. --Tone 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, Malta had 10 items in total when it was promoted (3 sites + 7 tentative). The rest had 8 items at time of promotion (both Montenegro and Albania was 4 + 4, while Slovenia had 3 + 5). I could understand why "leeway" was given for the examples above. But 6 total items seems to be cutting it. Especially considering how my FLC nom containing 11 items (7 + 4) was failed back in August 2012. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with all of the above, plus.....
  • "continuosly" - spelt wrong
  • "human occupancy of the area continued to the present day" => "human occupancy of the area continues to the present day"
  • "As of 2019, Lithuania lists two properties on its tentative list" - we're well into 2020 now.......
  • "so Kaunas was designated the Temporary capital of Lithuania" - no reason for capital T on temporary
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bloom6132:, @ChrisTheDude: Done, thank you. --Tone 15:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Intense logging activities in the 17th and 18th centuries caused the dunes moving towards the Lagoon". "caused the dunes moving" is ungrammatical.
• Curonian Spit. The description is mainly about the site's preservation and its natural importance. As it is a cultural site, I think you need to cover its architecture.
• "but human occupancy of the area continues to the present day." This is a bit misleading. The citation says "until modern times" and that since the cultural reserve was established in 1989 economic activty has been banned and the settlement managed for heritage protection.
• Trakai. More about its natural importance would be helpful.
• "During the Interwar period, Vilnius was administered by Poland, so Kaunas was designated the temporary capital of Lithuania." Although you have said above that Vilnius was the political centre, it would be helpful context to refer to it as the historic capital. Also "so Kaunas was designated" is a non-sequitur. Another town could have been chosen. Perhaps "During the Interwar period, the historic capital of Lithuania, Vilnius, was lost to Poland, and Kaunas was designated the temporary capital." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I'm through! It took me a while, sorry. --Tone 15:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

(WikiCup entry)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

*Not overwhelmed by the lead. I know it's a short list but this is really pushing the boundaries of what is considered featured material. Why obfuscate the name of Vilnius Castle Complex? "invasions and destructions," the "destructions" reads very odd to me here. " dating to Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, and Neoclassical styles." dating to ... styles is peculiar. The exhibit those styles or date to those eras of architecture. ". Important sites" according to whom? "Curonian Spit" don't part link a formal title to a generic topic. "98 kilometres (61 mi) long sandy " use adj=on here. "since the prehistoric times." maybe ENG~VAR but I would drop "the". " the Lagoon" no need to capitalise. "of the Spit is in " likewise. "millenium" two n's in there. "The most interesting" according to whom? "late 14th " late-14th , or late in the 14th. Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Struve our article gives him a von. Link Trakai. "Magdeburg Rights" no need for capital R. " 1919-1939" en-dash. Same in ref 10. {{Lithuania topics}} doesn't appear to reference this list so should be removed. Check your other lists for this issue. That's all I have for a quick look. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I'm through. I'd keep Lagoon and Spit capitalized as they refer to Curonian Lagoon and Curonian Spin, not to some lagoon or spit. I agree with other comments, thank you for a detailed check. --Tone 13:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review – pass

• All 10 sources used are sourced to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. WP:SOURCE (part of WP:V) requires us to "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There is no doubt that the UNESCO World Heritage Centre is a reliable published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. However, for the purposes of this list, it is not independent. For this article to meet WP:V, it will need a number of third-party, independent sources to verify the information within it. Harrias ^talk 22:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Harrias: I'll add some more sources, however, essentially they will always reference the list at least indirectly. We've had such discussions at previous lists nominations and this approach seemed acceptable. --Tone 09:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's fine. Ultimately, with this sort of list, we're always going to lean heavily on the primary source, but as long as there's a good smattering of third-party sources, we're fine. Harrias ^talk 09:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I think the sources I added will do. Thanks! --Tone 09:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #3 is missing publisher and author details.
• Ref #4 is missing author and date of publication.
• Ref #5 is missing the author. Harrias ^talk 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I miss the reflinks, when is it coming back? :/ --Tone 16:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • This? Harrias ^talk 18:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Anyway, that's all good now. Harrias ^talk 18:07, 24 July 2020 (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) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC) [9].

---

List of winners of the Boston Marathon

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 12:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Boston Marathon is the oldest, and arguably most prestigious, marathon in the world. It was formerly a featured list, but was demoted in 2012 and had serious sourcing and MOS non-compliance issues. I have completely overhauled it a followed the style of my recently promoted FL, List of winners of the New York City Marathon. As always, all feedback will be greatly received. Harrias ^talk 12:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

;Comments The refs above the first table are not in numerical order Swapped. Harrias talk 18:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 2020 row goes all the way across most of the tables but not the first It's that stupid extra column. Sorted. Harrias talk 18:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) "Due to World War I, the race was 10-man relay for military teams" => "Due to World War I, the race was a 10-man relay for military teams" Yes, of course. Harrias talk 18:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Should the 1978 men's wheelchair note also be against the 1978 women's wheelchair? I would sort of assume so, but I haven't seen anything that clarifies that the women definitely did start earlier. I'll keep looking; there's a few little quirks I'd like to find out more about, but for the most part, they are tangential. Harrias talk 18:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) I think the numbers in the victories by nationality table would look better centred Your wish is my command. Harrias talk 18:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Note c is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop I've made it into a complete sentence. Harrias talk 18:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Think that's it from me - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC) A pleasure as always ChrisTheDude. Harrias talk 18:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 14:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
;Comments I only noticed one thing: In the caption for the John McDermott image, the comma isn't necessary before "in 1897". Nice job, it's a great article. ~ HAL333 00:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Cheers HAL333, sorted that caption. Harrias talk 07:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Well done. ~ HAL333 14:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from User:Sillyfolkboy

• Lead

  • "The length of the marathon was not fixed" – need to clarify that "the marathon" in this context refers to the distance in general rather than the Boston marathon.
    • Done. Harrias ^talk 14:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead paragraph does not address the subject of the article: the winners of the Boston Marathon. This material describing the history of course measurement is best placed at Boston Marathon and only needs to be mentioned briefly here as an explanation of why some winners had their course records stripped.
    • I had trimmed the discussion about various distances away. Harrias ^talk 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This list makes no mention of the handcycle division. Handcyclists have received full winner ceremonies since 2017 and the division was well populated several years prior to that (see here for more info).
    • While they give them full winner's ceremonies, they do not list them on their list of champions. As such, it is difficult to gather when they first considered them "official finishers" of the marathon. From what I can see there were handcyclists taking part at least as far back as 2001, but at least some of these are described as "exhibition races". In the absence of the BAA or another reliable source publishing a list of winners, I am worried that it is going to be too difficult to ascertain the scope for this. While the Berlin Marathon is recognised as a significant handcycling event, this does not appear to be the case for Boston. At the moment, I would err on the side of either omitting it entirely, or including it, but only with results from 2017 onwards. Harrias ^talk 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The race recognises winners in visibility-impaired, mobility-impaired, and masters age categories [10]. How does the list intend to treat this fact?
    • Again, winners of these categories are not listed in the BAA list of champions. And again, without official guidance, it is nigh on impossible to establish a scope. Runners in all these categories are considered part of the open division, so they are subset, so I would lean towards including these in a separate list, if the relevant information could be found. Harrias ^talk 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead makes no mention of the athletes with the most wins at the Boston Marathon, bar Clarence DeMar. The most successful athlete of each division is key information for this topic.
    • Added this in. Harrias ^talk 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that Jean Driscoll has the record for most consecutive race victories at seven.
    • Added this in. Harrias ^talk 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead does not mention that Geoffrey Mutai won in 2011 with a then-fastest ever time of 2:03:02.
    • Added this into the lead and the table. Harrias ^talk 10:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no mention that Yamada's 1953 win was initially considered a world record.
    • Added, and the same for Viskari a few years later. Harrias ^talk 10:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably worth mentioning that Eugene Roberts was the first wheelchair finisher in 1970 but was not recognised as a wheelchair winner.[11]
    • Added this in. Harrias ^talk 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Suh Yun-bok set the only IAAF-ratified world record in the men's open race" – need to clarify that this means the only mens IAAF world record not the only IAAF-ratified world record.
    • Clarified. Harrias ^talk 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Worth stating that these world records were not official records at the time, but were retrospectively recognised as world records by the IAAF on January 1, 2004 (see Marathon world record progression and page 612 of the Stats handbook). The IAAF has also rebranded as World Athletics so the new name should be used.
    • I have added a note in regarding this. Harrias ^talk 10:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that Rita Jeptoo is the first and only winner to be stripped of the title.
    • This information is already presented in the table; I'm wary about overburdening the lead. Harrias ^talk 10:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning the periods of success of certain nationalities in the elite races, from early North Americans, to mid/late 20th century Europeans, to current-day East Africans.

• List

  • Surely the Key should be a sub-section within the Winners section rather than a section of its own?
    • Good point, done. Harrias ^talk 13:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The "Course notes" column of the men's division list is entirely about distance. This column should be simplified to "Distance".
  • Per the above, the N/A values in the above column should be replaced with the marathon distance and the column should be made sortable as numeric data.
    • Done both of these. Harrias ^talk 14:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The years on the list are only partially linked to the yearly articles. I would suggest adding links to all editions. Yearly articles are already present in the German and Dutch Wikipedias. (FYI – I've been creating these articles recently and will resume with the Boston article set once the Berlin Marathon is complete).

  Captions

  • "Men's Open" or "Men's open"?
  • Redundant to state "new" world/course record. The setting of one indicates that already.
  • "Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot had"?
  • "and 17-year course record."?
    • Tidied all these captions. Harrias ^talk 14:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Would it be useful to include an external link to the BAA website at the foot of the page?

Ping me once you've worked through the above or if you have any question. On a sidenote, several of the points I've mentioned above also apply to List of winners of the New York City Marathon so it's worth addressing that too. Happy to give a further review on that talk page rather than reopening the Featured List process, which would be a bit of a faff. Thanks for the work so far! SFB 15:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sillyfolkboy, a lot of very useful stuff there, including a few things I wasn't even aware of. Will take a look through in the next few days and come back to you. Harrias ^talk 15:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: Would you be able to have another look over the list, and my responses above, and let me know what you think? Harrias ^talk 10:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: Nearly all the above is good with me. On the handcycle winners - the BAA has officially recognised these since 2017 and made official announcements as such[12][13], so I'd definitely include the 2017–19 winners, plus a note simply stating that there were earlier exhibition handcycle races (I haven't located the year of first the handcycle entrants either, btw). All other changes are good, though this sentence is a little ambiguous so I'd explicitly note the years that were retrospectively recognised: "The first six victories in the women's open division were officially recognized in 1996." Thanks! SFB 10:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: Okay, added and clarified. Harrias ^talk 11:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments – Just curious – what's with the blank last column in the "Men's open division" table? Is it necessary? No, just a bit of stray code I hadn't even noticed. Harrias talk 07:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC) It was previously mentioned in one of my FLCs years ago (forgot exactly which one) that colspan could mess up sorting. You might want to consider formatting the "Canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic" rows as I did in Golden Spikes Award (which I in turn took off List of Davis Cup champions). Perhaps word as "Not contested" or "Not held". I've tested it: because it uses the {{n/a}} coding, it always sorts to the top/bottom, and doesn't break the sorting. Unless you are experiencing different? No, it sorts fine for me – was just concerned for other readers. Didn't notice that you had utilized {{n/a}} coding, which is different from previous colspan examples I was thinking of. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC) In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, a table caption should be included in "Victories by nationality". This quote by PresN might apply to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of " Added. Harrias talk 07:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC) All images are lacking alt text. Added. Harrias talk 07:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Otherwise, they are all licensed and tagged. Under MOS:DTT, "information should not be conveyed by color alone." You could utilize an accessible symbol like the ones you recommended to me in my FLC back in March. The colour is not conveying the information alone; in every case, the "Distance" or "Notes" gives the pertinent information in a text format. Harrias talk 07:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC) True – I didn't put two and two together about the info in the columns. Just so use to baseball lists (which don't have them). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Perhaps separate the "Notes and references" section into two level-2 headings of "Notes" and "References". Tomato/tomato surely? Harrias talk 07:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC) —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. could I please trouble you to have a look at this FLC of mine when you have the time? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC) @Bloom6132: Thanks for your review; I have responded to each of your points above. I'll add the MLB list to my reviewing list. Harrias talk 07:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support – looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review – Minor point, but ref 12 is using the 10-digit ISBN instead of the 13-digit ones elsewhere. The MoS recommends the 13-digit ISBNs, so I suggest changing that one. Changed to ISBN-13. Harrias talk 07:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Refs 13, 15, 17, and 18 are missing access dates. Added to some, removed other citations altogether. Harrias talk 07:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) The hyphen in the title of ref 22 should be an en dash per the MoS. Converted. Harrias talk 07:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Source reliability looks fine and the link-checker tool shows no problems, so we just need these few style points fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Cheers Giants2008, all done. Harrias talk 07:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• All of my comments have been resolved, so the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC) [14].

---

List of The Mandalorian characters

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of all the characters from the Star Wars television series The Mandalorian. It is my hope that it will eventually be the anchor of a good topic on this subject. I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. I modeled it in part after the excellent List of Alien (film series) characters (and I'd like to give a shout-out to DarthBotto for his work on that one). Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead The first sentence is a bit "sea of blue". I suggest at least moving "Star Wars" after "series" as "set in the Star Wars universe" or similar I moved Star Wars as you suggested. The "American space Western web television series" wording is what's used on the official The Mandalorian page so I used it for consistency, but I could change that wording too if you like. — Hunter Kahn 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Semi-colon after Mandalorian in the second sentence should be a comma Per WP:SEMICOLON I used the semicolon because that list sentence has several clauses separated by commas, so I thought the semicolon brought a bit more clarity to the separation of the two items. But I don't feel strongly so I replaced it with the semicolon. — Hunter Kahn 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) "Several supporting characters have appeared in at least three episodes of the first season" - I am presuming the season has finished, so this should be "Several supporting characters appeared in at least three episodes of the first season" Done. — Hunter Kahn 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) "A handful of guest characters make appearances" => "A handful of guest characters made appearances" (to match the tense of the sentence in my point above) Done. — Hunter Kahn 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Inconsistent use of capital/lower case T on character names that start with the word "The" Throughout the article with characters like this (The Mandalorian, the Child, the Armorer, the Client) I use a lower-case T for "the" except on the first reference, in which I use the capital T. But again, I don't feel strongly, so if you'd rather me lower-case the first references too, I could. — Hunter Kahn 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Back for more later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Comments on main characters ""The Mandalorian", sometimes addressed as Mando, is a sobriquet " - I would change "addressed" to something like "shortened" or "abbreviated", because it isn't the sobriquet that is addressed. I went with "abbreviated" — Hunter Kahn 15:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "The Mandalorian was [...] rescued [...] by the Mandalorians [...] prior to the events of The Mandalorian" - can this be reworded in such a way that you aren't saying "the Mandalorian(s)" three times in such quick successio? Maybe change the last one to "the first episode"? And/or change the first one to Djarin? This has been a constant challenge when writing about this show. LOL I basically changed it to "He was [...] rescues by the Mandalorains [...] prior to the events of the series". — Hunter Kahn 15:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "many comparions" - typo Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 15:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "and the Eastwood's" - don't think that "the" is needed Oops, quite right. Removed that. — Hunter Kahn 15:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "The Mandalorian and Pascal's performance has been well received" - plural subject, so it should be "have". Also, in this context what does "The Mandalorian" refer to? The character himself rather than the show? In that case I would say "The character of The Mandalorian" or even just "The character" to avoid confusion. Added "character" per your suggestions, and changed it to "have". — Hunter Kahn 15:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) That's it for that section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks ChrisTheDude! — Hunter Kahn 15:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Comments on recurring characters "Greef Karga is portrayed by Carl Weathers, who" => "Greef Karga is portrayed by Carl Weathers, whom" "through the Mandalorian does not initially trust him" - typo "based on their mutual work together" - think you just need to say "their work together" "Bryce Dallas Howard, who directed the character's first appearance on" => "Bryce Dallas Howard, who directed the character's first appearance in" "Carano has been received positively by reviewers and fans" - all of this sentence surely refers to the character, not the actor? So it should say "Cara has been received positively by reviewers and fans" "it is revealed Gideon possesses" => "it is revealed that Gideon possesses" Think that's it for that section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC) I made all those fixes. Thanks ChrisTheDude. — Hunter Kahn 13:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Comments on guest characters "Strong and physically imposing,[163][164][165] he is a heavy infantry fighter," - sentence seems to end with a comma "When the villager hires the Mandalorian and Cara Dune to protect them" - should that be "the villagers hire" (plural)? If not, who are the "them"? Some characters who are dead are described in a mix of the past and present tense eg "Riot Mar was [..] Riot pilots a starfighter and attacks the Mandalorian's ship, but is killed [...] Riot Mar is portrayed by Rio Hackford". Better to just use present tense throughout, I think "some critics have speculated the character could still be alive" => "some critics have speculated that the character could still be alive" "several critics noted that Mayfeld's sardonic personality and hard-edged sense of humor is" => "several critics noted that Mayfeld's sardonic personality and hard-edged sense of humor are" "Despites efforts by the Mandalorian to save him" - typo on the first word I think you could probably combine the descriptions of Wolf, Dodger and Ketter into one, given that they are substantially identical Several characters' entries mention Qin, but as his own listing comes much further down there is no context as to who he is. This could be rectified by amending Malk's listing to "He develops a plan for his crew to infiltrate a New Republic prison ship and rescue Qin, an imprisoned Twi'lek" Think that's it for that section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC) I've made the changes you suggested, and made tense fixes for other deceased characters besides Riot Mar based on your feedback, such as Davan. I had mixed feelings about combining the Wolf, Dodger and Ketter entries into one, but I certainly see the logic in it and have made the change. Thanks for your thorough copy edit, ChrisTheDude! — Hunter Kahn 13:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Comments on the notes "she appreciated that the character took a leadership role in the village and during the fighting scenes, and that she was not resorted to a background" - "resorted" doesn't seem like the right word here - maybe "reduced"? "Kathryn VanArendonk, also of Vulture, wrote that had" - think there's a word missing there "Keith Phipps, also of Vulture, said Peli was an multifacted character" => "a multifaceted" "while simultaneously appearing shrewd vaguely threaning" - "threaning" is not a word, not sure what it is meant to be "Peli Motto was included Vulture's list" - missing word "Elite Daily writer Ani Bundel felt the character was worth of her own spin-off series" => worthy "Matt Webb Mitovich of TVLine disliked the character, who he described" => whom he described "Joseph Stanichar of The Post praise the energy" => praised " Thrillist writer Dave Gonzales said Córdova did a great job portraying Qin, and "manage(d) to not make the head tenticles look too stupid"" - that's not how you spell "tentacles", but then it's a direct quote, so it might be that the source spelt it wrong, in which case you should add a {{sic}} template. The only thing that jumps out from the refs is that in ref 152 the italicisation seems to have gone awry All the best -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks very much for your thoroughness, ChrisTheDude! I've made changes in response to these comments as well. — Hunter Kahn 14:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Made c couple of little tweaks, now happy to support - thanks for bearing with me while I went through this bit by bit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much ChrisTheDude. Your thoroughness was much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 00:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support A well done article, but I think it would be further improved if you added links in the image captions. ~ HAL333 04:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments some top-level stuff. (WikiCup entry) General query: do we expect a load more characters to be added to this in October when season 2 is released? Are we getting close to this becoming unmanageably large? We can certainly expect new characters to be introduced in the show, though obviously per WP:CRYSTAL I have no idea how many or few there will be. I would suspect the list won't become unmanageably large though, it would just be a matter of adding characters and maintaining the list like has already been done. Many of the characters in season two will be others who have already been introduced in season one, meaning they won't have to be added again, so that will be helpful. And if the news coverage is any indication, some of the newly-added characters may be existing characters from the franchise (Ashoka Tano, Boba Fett, etc.) so the entry here would be relatively brief and then linking to their main articles... — Hunter Kahn Similar to one of the GANs I reviewed, I don't think we should specify the child as "extra-terrestrial" as most (if not all) Star Wars characters are in that bracket. Removed that. — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Clone Wars (Star Wars) is overlinked. Fixed this. — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC) "The following is a list of.." never keen on that, maybe "Several recurring characters have been featured in The Mandolorian...." Went with your suggested wording. — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC) I'm getting that sense of WP:CITEKILL again here, that you're using usually two if not three refs per sentence, is it all necessary? I'm not sure where you mean? — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Look at the section on Greef: from "Greef provides the ..." you have 3 refs for that single sentence, then 3 refs for the next sentence, then 6 refs for the following sentence, 3 for each major clause. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Ah, apologies The Rambling Man, I misread the name of the policy you cited and thought you were talking about wikilinks, not citation tags. My mistake. As for this, I've limited myself to no more than three citations per any given clause, which I personally didn't think was too much (per WP:CITEKILL: "...more than three should generally be avoided"). But if you think this is an issue, do you want me to go through the article and remove citation tags in instances where I use three? Or do you want me to just remove them from specific individual sentences where you think three tags is inappropriate? — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC) It's not like three is some kind of magic number for me, I'm just curious as to why we'd need three citations for a single sentence when in most circumstances, one would usually contain all the required verification detail. If you're saying all three citations are required every time to substantiate each sentence, that's just fine. If fewer would still verify the claims, then fewer is better from a readability perspective. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Ok, I'll go through and remove some citation tags... — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC) No main article for Dr. Pershing? He's the only one... There wasn't really enough about him to warrant a standalone article, so I kept it limited to his entry here. In most cases I started a standalone article if there was enough real-world information about the character (filming, portrayal, reception, etc.) that went beyond mere plot summary, and Pershing was one of the few where there really wasn't... — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Similar note above re "The following is a list" for the guest appearances too. Reworded this similarly to your suggested wording above. — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC) "make-up was done by make-up" repetitive. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC) The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback, The Rambling Man! — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC) The Rambling Man, I know I still have one outstanding issue to address here, just wanted to let you know that personal circumstances have kept me off Wikipedia recently, but I expect to resolve it in the next day or two. Apologies for the delay! — Hunter Kahn 11:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Absolutely no need to apologise. Whenever you're ready. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Apologies again for the delay, but wanted to note I am working on this as we speak and hope to have the noted concerns addressed today. Apologies for the delayed response again The Rambling Man and thank you for your patience. Personal circumstances kept me off Wikipedia much longer than I expected. But I've combed through the article and made some changes that removed all instances of three or more citation tags, in response to the WP:CITEKILL issues you (quite rightfully) raised. I think this should resolve that issue now, but if you'd like any further changes, please let me know. — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

Right, I missed all the individual articles at GA, as I hadn't finished watching the series, so I'm looking forward to looking this over. I will claim WikiCup points for the review.

• In the lead, why is "The Mandalorian" and "The Child" in quotation marks, as so, but The Armorer and The Client aren't? In fact, this is pretty inconsistent throughout the whole article.
  • I used quotations like this whenever the character was being introduced for the first time in a lead or character entry, but did not use quotation marks on second references. I felt this worked, but if you disagree I'm happy to remove the quotation marks, just let me know. — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "..with stunt actors Brendan Wayne and Lateef Crowder performing.." Avoid noun plus -ing.
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "The droid later join the Mandalorian.." Should be "joins".
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "..with some critics calling.." Noun plus -ing again.
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Refs #78 and #137, International Business Times is generally considered an unreliable source.
  • Removed. Fortunately, it was only used to cite information that already had other sources cited, so no substantial changes were needed after its removal. — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ref #202, Jezebel is generally considered an unreliable source.
  • Removed, which only required the removal of a single sentence that didn't have a major impact on the article. — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Overall, a very nice piece of work. I concur with TRM that it suffers from citation overkill, and could do with some trimming away, but other than that and the minor points I have raised, it looks really good. Harrias ^talk 10:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Harrias, and apologies for how late I am in responding to you. As I said above, personal circumstances kept me off of Wikipedia, but I should be available now for any follow-up comments if you have them. Thank you! — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support All my concerns have been resolved. Really nice work. Hope everything is okay off-wiki. Harrias ^talk 08:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Each of the standalone Mandalorian character articles have now passes the GAN process, so when and if this list article passed FLC, I plan to take it immediately to WP:GT. Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

*Source review – There are a couple of formatting glitches in the list of citations that could use fixing. First, ref 60 looks to have some faulty piping in the listed publisher. Second, ref 144 has some weird italics; the publisher (Vanity Fair) doesn't have them, but the title and access date have them for some reason. The source reliability mostly looks fine, but is it possible to find something stronger than a tweet for ref 143? That's a weak primary source, and I wouldn't be surprised if some notable publication mentioned this for such a prominent series. Other than these issues, the sourcing is okay, although I suggest looking at the link-checker tool, which is flagging several links as being possible dead. Any that are dead should be archived or replaced, although the one orange link I tested (the Newsweek one) seemed to be in working order. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you Giants2008. I've made changes in response to your review, fixing the errors with refs 60 and 144. I couldn't find a secondary source to replace 143, so I simply removed that sentence and source from the article; it wasn't a particularly important fact. I also went through each of the flagged links (as well as some others) from the link-checker tool and found all of them were working except one from Geek.com, which was formerly ref 257. I removed that source from the article, which was only used in a few spots to reinforce information already cited by other sources. Let me know if you have anything else. Thanks for the source review! — Hunter Kahn 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• All of the issues I pointed out appear to have been resolved. I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 22 July 2020 (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) 22:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC) [15].

---

List of Roman Catholic archbishops of Quebec

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL (e.g. bishops of Hong Kong, archbishops of Vancouver and Toronto), and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I tried really hard to find anything to pick you up on but failed utterly :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support A really solid article. The only thing I noticed, and this is quite a stretch, is that you linked "cardinal" in one of the captions, but you didn't link any other positions in any other captions. ~ HAL333 01:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• @HAL333: Thanks for pointing that out. I've un-linked it now for consistency's sake. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, is there a latin term for the position that you could put in the IB, like at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Quebec? ~ HAL333 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• @HAL333: It'd be Archiepiscopus Quebecensis, but it's not in widespread use nowadays (the results on Google Books all date to documents issued before the 1960s). And it messes up the infobox (I tried it with this edit) because I think the Latin parameter is only intended for articles on arch/dioceses (and not arch/bishops). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, well. ~ HAL333 22:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

• Add a short description.

• Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• The lead image could do with a caption, just to clarify that it is of Lacroix.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Both images in the infobox need alt text.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• The infobox mentions the Cathedral-Basilica of Notre-Dame de Québec, but this is not referenced, nor does it appear in the prose or table.

• Added ref (re-used from lead). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• "..held the position for seven months (1925–26)..": Non-abbreviated years are generally preferred.

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am confused about why, if Jean-Baptiste de La Croix de Chevrières de Saint-Vallier was appointed on July 7, 1687, François de Laval did not resign until January 24, 1688?

• According to Laval's DCB bio (ref 6), "When his resignation had been accepted, Bishop Laval agreed to remain bishop of Quebec until the consecration of his successor, Abbé Saint-Vallier". That occurred on January 25, 1688 (the day after Laval's resignation became official). I've added a footnote (like the ones below) to clarify the situation – hope that works. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Could you add the footnote to de Laval's resignation date, and make what is in that quote clear: that he agreed to stay on after his resignation? The current footnote that was added, "Saint-Vallier received episcopal consecration on January 25, 1688." wouldn't help me if you hadn't explained it. Harrias ^talk 08:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Harrias: Added. Would you like me to remove the other footnote on Saint-Vallier's date of consecration? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• If you feel it is superfluous, feel free to remove it, but I'm happy with both coexisting. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's it from me on the prose and the table. As those above have said, a very well put together article. I will claim WikiCup points for this review, and would appreciate it if you would consider reviewing List of winners of the Boston Marathon (FLC). Harrias ^talk 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: thanks for the comments! I hope they've been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, all my concerns have been resolved. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Is there a good reason for the shouty ARCHBISHOPRIC and CATHOLIC in the infobox? Not really. But then, that's the default setting for the "Infobox diocese" template. And since it's permanently template-protected and I'm not an admin, I'm unable to do anything about it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Primate of Canada has its own page (probably therefore shouldn't be bold here) but which of those Primates? Removed bolding. Should I put that title in quote marks instead? —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) No, I think it's fine. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) I've got a radical suggestion. Merge the three tables so the sorting is really valid. You use row span first column for the title instead of using section headings and subdividing the entries. I thought that goes against MOS:DTT. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) No, add a new column and rowspan it. Thew new column is the "title". That's not against MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Sorry, I still haven't warmed to that suggestion. I feel readers could get confused as to why there are consecutive rows for Laval and Plessis. Normally with a single table, it would be one row for one ordinary. That's the way I initially formatted these tables, but I believe the split table format (introduced by another editor) conveys the information clearer and more concisely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Forgive my ignorance, please, but the post-nominals aren't obvious to me, consider a key. Where I live, MEP means Member of the European Parliament for instance... Added all post-nominal abbreviations to the key. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Also helps when not all (e.g. RSV) have no article to link to. "present" messes up the sorting of the Until column. Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) There are several chronological gaps in the table (e.g. it appears no-one held this position between 1801 and 1805), I would have thought that worthy of note. According to the table, Pierre Denaut was bishop from 1797 to 1806, and was succeeded immediately by Joseph-Octave Plessis (his coadjutor). The only chronological gap I see is between 1760 and 1766. And that's been explained (albeit indirectly) by the note re the conquest of New France by the British. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) That's all I have. This is a WikiCup review by the way. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: thanks for the feedback! I hope they've been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Giants2008 and PresN: if you are of the opinion that this nom is close to passing, could I please trouble one of you to give this a dedicated source review? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references used in the article appear reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no dead links. My source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 18 July 2020 (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) 22:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC) [16].

---

List of ICC Men's T20 World Cup centuries

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've improved the article significantly with all required information, citations and structure and from previous experiences of nominations I've taken care of small details carefully. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria per WP:WIAFL and has a scope of getting FL status. I welcome to all comments and suggestions regarding this nomination. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "As of 2016 Men's T20 World Cup," => "As of the 2016 Men's T20 World Cup,"
• "(then World Twenty20)" => "(then called the World Twenty20)". Also no reason for the name to be in italics
• "This is the first and only instance in the championship where" => "This is the first and only instance in the championship when"
• "until he had broken his own record" => "until he broke his own record"
• "The second and third batsmen to score a century in the championship were....." - why is it important to note the second and third players to score a hundred?
  • Sorry, it just totally gone out of my mind, actually the first three centries makes all the three bastemen to achieve the feat of becoming players who scored centuries in all the formats of the game, a very rare feat in cricket. Gayle's being the first. Added the info and see if needs any correction. Dey subrata (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Brendon McCullum is the highest individual scorer in the Men's T20 World Cup, scored 123 runs" => "Brendon McCullum is the highest individual scorer in the Men's T20 World Cup, having scored 123 runs"
• "As of 2016, " - this is still true, so say "as of 2020"
  • Because this is world cup, happens after 4 years, and last time held in 2016 and the 2020 world cup is yet to start. This one is not like the last list. Dey subrata (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, but just saying "as of 2016" could make the reader think that there have been more world cups since then (the article doesn't say that it is only held every four years) and the article just hasn't been updated. If you really want to keep the 2016 date then you must say "as of the 2016 tournament, the most recent to take place"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
      • ChrisTheDude, I think to add "the most recent to take place" would be better, since ICC yet to decide to hold the T20I WC as 2 years or 4 years event. Please check the above point also, if any correction needed in the added lines. Dey subrata (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• "refers to whether the player's team won, lost" => "refers to whether the player's team won or lost"
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude Fixed and replied at the particular points. Dey subrata (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Made a few minor tweaks and now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support A well written article. ~ HAL333 15:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

• "..is the international championship of T20 cricket. A T20 International.." Spell out "Twenty20" on these two occasions, including the abbreviation in brackets after.

• added in the first sentence, (T20) in the first sentence fulfills the purpose of the second sentence for which the the short form is used so that can be used later in the paragraph. However, ICC now call it as T20, no more as Twenty20. Drat8sub (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• No they don't. They have rebranded the competition to use "T20", but the format of cricket is still called Twenty20 and Twenty20 International. Both abbreviations need defining, per MOS:ABBR. Harrias ^talk 07:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Harrias, correct, was prejudiced by the world cup name change. Fixed the name thing. Drat8sub (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• "This century also made him the first player to score a century in all three formats of international cricket." The last century you mentioned was the 2016 one, but this presumably refers to his 2010 one.
• The Key table needs to be made accessible with row and column scopes, and a table caption.
• "Inns." is actually "Inn" in the list.
• "refers to whether the player's team won or lost or if the match was drawn" None of the matches were drawn, might as well remove this.
• We can now use {{asterisk}} as an accessible symbol.
• Support All my concerns have been resolved. Harrias ^talk 07:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• NB: I will claim WikiCup points for this review. Also, I would appreciate if you would consider reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/PCA Young Player of the Year/archive1. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review – pass

• Be consistent about whether ESPNcricinfo is treated as a work or a publisher in the sources.
• Typo in ref #6.
• Ref #8 needs author details adding.
• No need to pipe ref #10, leave it as The Daily Telegraph.

That's it from me. Harrias ^talk 12:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Harrias,  Fixed all above. Drat8sub (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM WikiCup entry "the two teams play a single innings each" -> "each team plays a single innings" "been 8 centuries scored by 7 players." eight, seven per MOSNUM. "instance in the championship when" usually "instance ... of" or "time ... when". "2016 ICC T20 World Cup.[7][8] He scored an" consider merging, ie "2016 ICC T20 World Cup when he scored an". And maybe drop the precise date (it's in the table anyway). Just to make sure it's clear you're talking about the same innings. If you keep the date, ", Mumbai on" needs a comma after Mumbai. " the 2012 edition." put edition inside the pipe. ", Kandy on " comma after Kandy. "feat of scoring a century in all the international formats of the game, a feat o" feat/feat repetitive. Why isn't D/L in bold in the key table? In fact, for the 2016 century, was it D/L or D/L/S because that was introduced in 2015... DL is not bold because it is not used as bold in the table and it will look odd in the result section. Secondly, generally it called as DL. However you are correct the 2016 is Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method so it will be enough to link the whole name which now I've corrected the piping with whole name. The colours aren't visible in the key table. Not sure if you're fixing col widths, but the teams often spill onto two lines and that looks awkward. Bangladesh is entirely on a new line after its flag... No, I've not fixed any width, its producing this on its own, may be due to number of columns. Most other lists are similar only. It's fine. Several fields missing from the key, i.e. No., 4s, 6s, S/R, Edition etc. Normally the asterisk for not out is unspaced. The row scope should be the player name, that's the key information in each line. ESPNcricinfo in refs vs ESPN Cricinfo in ext links. Not sure how useful the second external link is as it's not constrained to World Cup T20I centuries. External links are basically for future research, and that link is showing T20I centuries with ball comparison which also includes T20I WC centuries, so it will be surely helpful for future readers, editors and researchers. That's all from me. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC) The Rambling Man,  Fixed all above and commented above on points for clarification. Drat8sub (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2020 (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, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC) [17].

---

List of municipalities in Prince Edward Island

Nominators: Hwy43 (talk) and Mattximus (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We return with our 12th (out of 13) municipalities nomination with the goal of bringing the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador (British Columbia already had FL status before we began collaborating on this initiative). We have also taken suggestions from the previous 10 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Hwy43 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

*"property assessment value that meets or exceeds $750-million" - no reason for that hyphen there Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC) "property assessment value that meets or exceeds $200-million, but is less than $750-million" - same again Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC) "each of the towns elect a mayor" => "each of the towns elects a mayor" Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC) "each of the rural municipalities elect a mayor" - same again Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC) "Borden-Carlton incorporated as a town on July 31, 2012." - if this is the case, what did it incorporate as in 1995? This applies to several of the notes and could do with clarification. I believe the former community status before the status was rebranded as rural municipality. This and review of the several other notes will take a bit of time so I will park this until the evening. Will ping you once done. Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Since fixed for all four instances. Hwy43 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

:Thank you, ChrisTheDude, for commenting on another one of our co-nominations. I have responded to all of your comments. Let us know if all have been sufficiently addressed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC) One thing I just picked up - "The 2016 population of Central Prince is the post-amalgamation sum of the population counts associated with two former rural municipalities (Ellerslie-Bideford and Lady Slipper)" - I would say this also applies to the 2011 figure, doesn't it? Also, is some sort of note needed clarifying the 2011 population of Bedeque and Area given that it didn't incorporate until 2014? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Fixed for Central Prince and North Shore. Not necessary for Bedeque and Area as that amalgamation occurred before the last federal census so Statistics Canada has already published a revised 2011 population count for it for comparison purposes with the 2016 population count. Hwy43 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92

Resolved comments from Reywas92 (talk)

*"Municipal statuses in Prince Edward Island include" -> "are", the set is comprehensive Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Perhaps Local government in Canada should be linked instead of Local government Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC) "meets or exceeds" should just be "exceeds" for both uses of the towns. I remember authoring this. It was the best solution I could come up with at the time to avoid any perception of COPYVIOing content from its source that states "an estimated population of over 4,000 persons, but not more than 14,999 persons and a total property assessment value of over $200,000,000, but not more than $749,999,999." If "an estimated population of 4,000 or more" is sufficiently different, then consider this done. Hwy43 (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Three Rivers is the largest town by area, not Cornwall. Fixed – this was authored before Three Rivers was incorporated. Thanks for catching that. Hwy43 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC) I don't understand why List of towns in Prince Edward Island exists and is linked as the "main article". This does not serve the reader because it is just a WP:DUPLICATE of content already in this article, except that the populations are outdated; it is not actually a main article providing the reader further information. I now remember where I first remember crossing paths. We had differing opinions at Talk:List of towns in New Brunswick while in a fairly inactive in a near-retirement state. Regarding the towns list, the only thing I'll initially add to my previous arguments there is WP:NOTDONE, whereas this overarching article is effectively done except for the need to maintain and update it as things change over time (municipal restructuring, new census results, etc.). I won't rehash old arguments beyond that because this isn't the place, but I recognize that the towns list does need to be updated and more content does need to be added to sufficiently make it a child list article for towns above and beyond what exists currently in this article. As working from home during covid has brought me out of near-retirement, I can put this on my to do list. As for what is happening here, I understand your comment about it being linked as the "main article", so I have changed it from the {{Main}} template to the {{See also}} template. Hwy43 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Except it's not a see also either. You're giving a link to the reader that they would expect to have additional information but there is none and that is a disservice. What can possibly be added to the towns list that shouldn't be added to this list? If Towns is expanded, then Municipalties won't be up to FL snuff by missing relevant information. Leaving this WP:REDUNDANT page is baffling. Reywas92Talk 17:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC) ‎Reywas92, what is your proposed or desired solution for this FLC then? To remove the {{See also}} template? If so, that can be done. Also await your confirmation that the balance of your comments has been addressed. Hwy43 (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Yes, with respect to the FLC, the link does not add to the article and should be removed. Outside this, the towns list should be redirected. The other comment responses are great, thanks. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Removed {{Main/See also}} tag. Hwy43 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Population density column doesn't need to include "/km2" in every item, just put the unit in the header. Fixed – fortunately saved by there being a disp parameter in the template. Hwy43 (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Not n is missing a ". I've applied italics instead. If that is okay then consider this done. Hwy43 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Do the totals at the bottom take into account the amalgamations? The populations of the former places would be included in the 2016 totals but the not the 2011 totals since they're not in the table at all. Yes. I did the population adjustments for the amalgamated municipalities just prior to nomination and those totals were done properly as confirmed by a doublecheck just now. However, there were two errors in the land area totals, which are now fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC) The second EL may not be needed since you have the third. Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Another nice list! Reywas92Talk 17:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Thank you, Reywas92, for commenting on another one of our co-nominations. I have responded to all of your comments. Let us know if all have been sufficiently addressed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks again, Reywas92. I believe all your comments are now addressed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Good addition to the series. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Can review this later. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC) To be eligible for city or town status, certain minimum estimated population and total property assessment value criteria must be met can you be specific as to what these are? These are specified in the respective sections above the table (under cities and towns). I'm not sure it would be a good idea to repeat them in the lead as they are not really important to the summary of the table and different depending on municipality type. Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC) In the recent FLC for NL municipalities, we were asked to be mindful of not repeating things too closely together. During that review, that comment reminded me that lead sections are supposed to be summaries of articles where details are more appropriate within the body. As Mattximus has advised, the thresholds are presented two and three paragraphs later (for cities and towns respectively). Not a hill to die on, but if we do add to the lead we risk inducing a concern about repetition similar to that voiced in the last FLC review. Hwy43 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I think it's ok. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC) The province's lone resort municipality that was established by order in council in 1990 continues as such would be helpful to know which this was. Oh the resort municipality is called resort municipality. I could link it so that it says The province's lone resort municipality that was established..." But it feels a bit easter-egg like. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Perhaps "The province's lone resort municipality, called "Resort Municipality", that was established by order in council..." Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC) "Resort Municipality" is just a short form of the lone resort municipality's official legal name. I have wikilinked it based on its official legal name and revised wording. Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC) continues as such in the Municipal Government Act but no new resort municipalities may be created pursuant to what? I'm a bit confused with this comment, it's pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, which is in the sentence. Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Perhaps "pursuant to the law". Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Addressed by way of altering wording in tandem with addressing previous and next comments per these three edits. Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC) continues as such as of when? The incorporation in 1990, which is in the previous sentence? Sorry also confused with this comment. Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Technically its status as a resort municipality, granted originally in 1990, continued from the point in December 2017 when the MGA came into force. These three edits should address this and the previous to comments. If so, consider this fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Overall I would feel better about supporting if more context was added to the first paragraph about Prince Edward Island, for instance when it was colonized by Europeans, colonized by natives or vikings, first charted or recognized by the Canadian government, naming taxonomy, etc. Although the Miꞌkmaq and their ancestors have been there for several millennia, they did not establish any of the municipalities we have on this list. The vikings never visited and any old colonies of the French and English also are not reflected on this list, which begins with the incorporation of Charlottetown in 1855. I believe any additional history before that found in the table is really beyond the scope of a list of current municipalities of PEI. Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Agree that this request is outside the scope of the article. None of the 10 previous FLC reviews have triggered the need for such and implementing in this one would make it out of alignment with the 11 other FLs. That said, I understand the spirit and intent of the request, so I have added History of Prince Edward Island as an entry in the See also section. Hwy43 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC) OK. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Distribution of Prince Edward Island's 72 municipalities by municipal status type perhaps add "as of 2017" with Template:As of Will have to consult Hwy43 as it is his map and he knows the caption standards and dates. Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Added as of template like so. I’ll put updating the map to 2020 on my to do list should the necessary open data be available. Hwy43 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Files look OK to me. Consider moving File:Charlottetown aerial photo.jpg and File:Summerside City Hall.jpg into the first section to prevent from breaking first section, as it now does. Done Starting with the municipal elections in 2018, both cities elect a mayor and a minimum of eight councillors. is that pursuant to a law? How often do they get voted into office, how often are elections? Added "every four years". Technically it is every four years on the first Monday in November, but I think that is a bit much. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Pursuant to the MGA. Added mention to the MGA in all four instances. Temporarily removed the every four years piece until a reference is provided confirming such (I don’t dispute it at all, just need a source). In place of the first instance I added when the next election is based on a source I accessed recently. I’ll be back tomorrow. Hwy43 (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Now fully addressed – we tie it back to the MGA and mention elections occur every four years with the next one scheduled for November 2022. This change is repeated in all four mentions, so this effort also addresses two more bullets below. Hwy43 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Perhaps abbreviate Municipal Government Act to its abbreviation so you won't have to repeat it to the readers over and over. I'm hesitant to do this as it might constitute WP:OR, since it is never once abbreviated in the 128 pages of the Act itself. Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC) I suppose that's fair. Although a Google search for "Municipal Government Act" 2016 "(MGA)" shows ~76k results for MGA. Also Edmonton uses it predominately here. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Not hesitant at all. See acronym in action. I have added. Consider this addressed. Hwy43 (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I am assuming if the population dips below the threshold for creation of a city, municipality, etc it's OK to keep that form of government? Is there any leeway in the MGA about changing? Can the municipality vote etc? Yes the rules are for establishment only. The government can change, but they then must meet the same requirements, so I don't think that's needed as it would be repetition. I did add one line to resort municipality as it has a "maximum" population of 2000 before it is upgraded to a municipality. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Can the Fisheries minister change a municipality on a whim because the population declined? That would be worth a mention. Otherwise OK. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC) MGA states "Where the Minister is satisfied that a municipality no longer meets the criteria for its class as (1) specified in subsection 13(1), the Minister may recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that the class of the municipality be changed to a class that is appropriate." This applies to cities and towns only. I have since added this. No explicit opportunity for the municipality to vote on the minister's recommendation. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Starting with the municipal elections in 2018, again, pursuant to anything? how often? Added "every four years" to the other 3 sections. Was that your recommendation? And pursuant to the Municipal government act, which is mentioned. Mattximus (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Now fully addressed – as mentioned above, we tie it back to the MGA and mention elections occur every four years with the next one scheduled for November 2022. This change is repeated in all four mentions, so this effort also addresses one bullet above and one more below. Hwy43 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC) under the previous Municipalities Act when was that one passed? Added 1988, do you think we should also add a reference linking to this act? Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC) That would be helpful for context if a reader wanted to read it. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Added reference. Mattximus (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Done and actually 1983. The 1988 version of the Municipalities Act was a consolidation of the Act five years later. The 1988 version reference remains, embedded within the associated note. Hwy43 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Starting with the municipal elections in 2018 same Sorry was is meant by "same"? Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Now fully addressed – as mentioned above, we tie it back to the MGA and mention elections occur every four years with the next one scheduled for November 2022. This change is repeated in all four mentions, so this effort also addresses two more bullets above. Hwy43 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure the "hide" function is really necessary on the table. I agree, I checked the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables and did not see this requirement. It is also found on all other lists. I will check with others to see the reason this is here in the first place. Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Done by removing collapsible parameter. Since the list is the focus of the article, no need to collapse the list unless there are multiple lists in an article. Hwy43 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Definitely not a requirement, but would suggest archiving the sources before they inevitably die. Otherwise looks good to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Is there a bot that does this? It's an excellent idea. Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Done. All 23 refs now have archive urls added. Hwy43 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for your review Therapyisgood! I've addressed all your concerns. Some were easy fixes, but others require your response to my comments. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Therapyisgood, I echo Mattximus' appreciation. Thank you! All but two comments have yet to be formally responded to or addressed. I will return in the evening to address the population decline comment (this will take some effort as such new content would have to be sourced and it is difficult to source something that the MGA might not explicitly say). Once addressed, I can tackle the proactive archiving (final bullet). In the meantime, please advise if all other comments have been addressed or sufficiently responded to, if you have the time. I'm particularly interested in if you are satisfied with our responses to your first and fifth bulleted comments. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC) @Hwy43: Everything looks good aside from the population. Though you do have one "Municipal Government Act" left in the "Rural municipalities" section. I would like some clarification on if that was on purpose. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Most definitely not on purpose. Heavy eyelids last night had the blinders obscuring that instance. Hwy43 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC) @Therapyisgood: the comments about population decline implications and archiving of the sources are now addressed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I have no qualms if this was promoted. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources both look fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 8 July 2020 (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) 22:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC) [18].

---

Robert De Niro filmography

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert De Niro is an American actor, producer, and director. He is mostly known for his work in crime films, thrillers and collaborations with filmmaker Martin Scorsese. Some of his work include Raging Bull (1980), The King of Comedy (1982), The Godfather Part II (1974), Goodfellas (1990), and Casino (1995) to name a few. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Is it really relevant to include that he performed in a school production of The Wizard of Oz when he was 10 years old? That's not something I would normally expect to see in an actor's filmography..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude, Removed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 21:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

;Comments De Niro portrayed as Travis Bickle - I would replace "portrayed as" with "portrayed" or "portrays" Artemis Fowl has already been released, straight to Disney+. Tried watching it, but it was atrocious. You should make a note that it lost its theatrical release. Nice article. I came across this one a few weeks ago and wondered why it wasn’t a FL. ~ HAL333 15:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC) HAL333, Thanks for the comments. I believe I have addressed them. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 21:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you HAL333! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

;Further comments "Taxi Driver was ranked number 1 in the 100 greatest movies set in New York City by Time Out magazine" - not sure this is really relevant to his filmography (also "best film set in NYC" is pretty trivial) "In 1978, De Niro appeared in Michael Cimino's war drama The Deer Hunter, the film is based on" => "In 1978, De Niro appeared in Michael Cimino's war drama The Deer Hunter, a film based on" "collaborated with Scorsese in musical-drama" => "collaborated with Scorsese on musical drama" "which Scorsese threw away and said "[the book was] full of shit"" => "which Scorsese threw away and said was "full of shit"" "in which De Niro was praised for his performance" => "in which he was praised for his performance" "The King of Comedy, in the film, he appeared as" => "The King of Comedy, in which he appeared as" "Then the next year, De Niro appeared" => "The following year, De Niro appeared" "De Niro starred in Penny Marshall's Awakenings based on" => "De Niro starred in Penny Marshall's Awakenings, based on" " In the film, De Niro plays as" => " In the film, De Niro plays" "who wakes from his sleep 30 years later" - this wording can't be right, he can't have simply been asleep for 30 years, that isn't physically possible "Then the next year, De Niro appeared in Scorsese's " => "The following year, De Niro appeared in Scorsese's " "The film focuses on Max Cady (played by De Niro), a convicted rapist" - this could easily be joined to the previous sentence as "De Niro appeared in Scorsese's psychological thriller Cape Fear as Max Cady, a convicted rapist" "In 2019, De Niro appeared" - exactly the same opening as the previous sentence, can you find way to vary the language? "After Joker, De Niro collaborated with Martin Scorsese in" => "After Joker, De Niro collaborated with Martin Scorsese on" "De Niro performance in the film" => "De Niro's performance in the film" As far as I can tell from its article, he played a character in "Ellis", so the role should not be "None". If the character is not named, put that. Film and TV titles starting with a number should sort as if they started with the relevant word ("Fifteen", etc) The Man Who..... should sort under M Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC) ChrisTheDude, Thanks for the comments. I believe I have addressed them. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you ChrisTheDude! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

When there's no evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:1990 Venice Film Festival Robert De Niro.jpg is the uploader's own work His middle name doesn't really seem relevant here (better for main bio) I'm not sure it's appropriate to include films without known release dates, regardless of production status Don't link to drafts like you did with Killers of the Flower Moon Documentaries shouldn't have their own table; merge these with the films Remove the comma after "short" in "Documentary short, about his father" If his role for One Night Stands of a Noisy Passenger isn't known, then I don't see any point in including it here What makes "Screen Rant" a trustworthy source? Don't use italics for RogerEbert.com "goldenglobes.com" → Golden Globe Awards without italicizing the term Remove the ".com" from "IrishCentral.com", and don't italicize that either Add italics for Mental Floss and Hartford Courant I'd prefer something stronger than Bustle That's it from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, Thanks for the comments. I believe I have addressed them. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC) My pleasure. Just needs a couple more fixes: Backstage should be capitalized without the ".com" and "The Telegraph" should read The Daily Telegraph. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Following sufficient improvements, I now support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you SNUGGUMS! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review – I found a few issues that need fixes: Ref 6 is to what appears to be a self-published book. Unless Matt Green is an authority on film, this is unlikely to be a reliable source; the content itself looks similar to a Wikipedia article. Removed. Ref 45 is another self-published book in the same vein as the previous one. Again, it is unlikely to be reliable unless the author can be shown to be an authority on the subject of movies. Removed Refs 53 and 54 have some unusual page number formatting that should probably be made consistent with the other book cites. Done. Added new sources. Ref 95 could use a page number for verifiability (one appears to be available). Done. The same is true for ref 110. Done. Refs 29, 37, 132, and 148 have all caps in their titles that could use removal, and 149 has the author in all caps. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Done. Giants2008, I believe I have addressed them. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Upon checking the fixes, the only further issue I see is that ref 149 has the author in all caps, which shouldn't be the case (I thought I saw that earlier). Take care of this and that should do it for my source review. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Giants2008, Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

With that final comment resolved, the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC) [19].

---

List of ursids

Nominator(s): PresN 02:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Fifth in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (FLs felids, canids, mustelids, and the pending procyonids), we continue through Carnivora with the recognizable Ursidae, aka "bears". This one is the smallest yet at 8 extant species, though it still has dozens of subspecies and over 100 extinct species. The animals are fairly non-diverse: they range from "big" to "very big", all look more or less like a "bear", and besides the polar bear like to hang out in forests. While the giant panda famously only eats bamboo, many of the other species have a fairly specialized diet, though even then they'll often eat a fairly wide variety of things if they get too hungry. For the first (and probably last) time in this series, we actually have population estimates for all of the species, which is nice. The list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "File:2010-kodiak-bear-1.jpg could be larger in the lead in my opinion. It's a bit small to me.

• It's standard thumbnail size, so it's whatever your personal settings are- overriding that is generally not recommended as it messes with mobile browsers (MOS:IMGSIZE).

• Why are you citing a book on the History of Music in Russia for the specifications of the lead?

• For the 7 words prior to the cite- "some bears have been trained for entertainment".

• There is no generally accepted classification of extinct ursid species according to who? why? have any been proposed? which classifications do exist?

• I can't really prove a negative, this is a phrase I've had to use in the prior lists as well- almost no animal families have overall classification schemes for extinct species. People find new species, give them a name in a paper, maybe a decade later someone says it should actually be in a different genus, etc., but there aren't any general overview papers or books for ursids that cover the entire family and try to organize things that I can point to. It's just a pile of individual species/genera; the paleobiology database at least collates all of that into one location that doesn't contradict itself. I can remove that sentence and let it stand without it, but I can't cite anything to show that there's no classifications out there.

• Bolding of the Subfamily violates MOS:BOLD

• Removed

• The photos at the bottom of "Prehistoric ursids" need alt text.

• Whoops, done.

• Ref 27 needs a language distinction in the citation template. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure; I didn't put it because the link includes a full translation of the paper- the English version of the paper starts on page 13 of the pdf.

@Therapyisgood: Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Just a couple of points from me:

• "such reclassifying" - missing word
• Under the polar bear's diet, you use "eat", whereas everywhere else you use "eats"

Great work as ever. Oh, by the way - is that Asian black bear wearing a Batman costume? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Both done! And maybe... --PresN 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Just a quick comment, but sentences like "All listed species are extinct; where a genus or subfamily within Ursidae comprises only extinct species, it is indicated with a dagger symbol " shouldn't be in the body of the text, but as a note (either footnote, or in Notes section, or even could be reworded into a legend if you so choose). Mattximus (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• I think this should be called List of bears (redirects here). While the other lists needed to use the Latin family name because there were multiple types of animal common names within the family, in this case it's a single type and the English name is more accessible to readers.

• I disagree. I think keeping consistency with the other (currently) 7 lists for Carnivora is important, and that this one family has a common name that matches the whole family shouldn't change that- redirects are easy. It also makes it clearer that this is a list of "bear" species, not individual bears.

• "A member of this family is called an ursid or a bear." This should be reversed perhaps with explanation to "A member of this family is called a bear or an ursid, from the Latin ursa." But even then, it's sort of tautologial. It's not that family members are called ursids or bears, it's that bears comprise this family; the classification came after they were named.

• Flipped to be bear or ursid. I'm not sure about the "ursa" bit- it's not directly from ursa, it's from Ursidae, which is itself derived from "ursa", but so is Ursinae, Ursus, Ursida, and Ursoidea, and Ursid doesn't derive from any of those. Additionally, that "bear" maps to "ursid" is almost an accident for species- when the name arose for these animals, it did not apply to, say, the giant panda- but that's a "bear" now. It originally just meant "brown bear", because that's what's in Europe, and it turns out after we started calling all 8 species "bears" because they looked like they were, that for once that was correct, so the common term for the family continues to match. (As opposed to, say, the red panda... which isn't a panda, or a bear.) Tons of the common names for groups of animals no longer make much sense with modern dna analysis- in canidae, for example, what animals are "fox" vs. a "dog" or "wolf" is pretty loose compared to the actual genetics of the situation as soon as you get out of Europe. Additionally, how animals are divided into families/genera is nowadays based on their genetics (with, granted, a lot of historical weight), and not on what the common English name for a group of animals is called- saying that all members of Ursidae are bears because the term "bear" is the basis of the family, as opposed to the genetic situation, just isn't correct.

• The note "All extinct species or subspecies listed alongside extant species went extinct after 1500 CE, and are indicated by a dagger symbol" does appear applicable and should be removed.

• It is applicable- the U. a. crowtheri (Atlas bear) subspecies of the brown bear has it.

• Avoid redlinks in the Prehistoric ursids section, else redirects to the subfamily may be appropriate.

• Why, beyond aesthetics? While I avoid redlinks for species names, as the chances of any one of them getting an article is scant and the sea of red difficult to parse, genera (even prehistoric genera) are good and likely candidates for articles (as evidence, many of them do have articles). WP:REDLINK.

• Tables are great, good work as usual. Reywas92^Talk 03:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Reywas92: Thanks for reviewing! Sorry for taking so long to get to this. Replied inline. --PresN 03:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Reywas92: Pinging again, sorry. --PresN 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Brown bear range also includes parts of Europe.
• For polar bear link "supratidal" and maybe "intertidal".
• Link less well known food e.g. "beluga whales", "kelp"
• I agree with Reywas92 above about the name of the article and so maybe the first 4 sentences could become something like:

"Bears make up/comprise/ the family of mammals called Ursidae in the order Carnivora; including the giant panda, brown bear, and polar bear. The many living/extant and extinct bears are also known as ursids, from the Latin ursa. Bears are widespread across the Americas and Eurasia ,mostly (living)/ :most live in forests, though some species live in grassland and savana, and polar bear habitat is arctic and surrounding sea/polar bear habitat is arctic (ice) land and sea/polar bears live in the Arctic." or "Bears, being classified by scientists as the family Ursidae in the Carnivora order of mammals, are also known as ursids, from the Latin ursa. Many species are already extinct but the polar bear and giant panda survive for now. The brown bear thrives across the forests of North America and Eurasia; and there are less well known species, some living in grassland and savana."

• What about the overlap with the Bear page as questioned on this article's talk page?
• Support

If you have not already done so perhaps you could take a quick peek at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Finally getting back to this, starting with these comments: did the links and fixed the map caption. I disagree about renaming the page, and will discuss further below Reywas92's comments. The talk page comment is from 2013 and reflects a very different page. --PresN 02:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I think the lead should cover diet.
• Clade should be wikilinked.
• "if a range map is not available, a description of the bear's range is provided". Why do you say this when all species have both?
• A first class list. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: Added diet to lead, linked clade, and removed that sentence (it's part of my default template for these lists, but accidentally didn't get dropped when it turned out all species had a map). Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Couldn't find anything to pick at. ~ HAL333 21:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

(WikiCup entry)

• The IUCN table leaks badly into the next section which then pushes the Classification diagram down. Are all the IUCN categories with zero relevance here needed?

• I've modified the template to let me suppress the "other categories" section, since that's all 0 for this family. The main categories should stay, though, as readers shouldn't be expected to know what the 7 red list categories are (e.g. that there's a step in between "least concern" and "vulnerable".

• In Ursids section, giant panda and brown bear are overlinked.

• Unlinked

• "500-1,000 " should be en-dash.

• Fixed

• Over what period are the population trend icons based?

• I can't find how the IUCN defines it; I believe it's a snapshot, e.g. at the time the assessment was last updated what was the trend. They're major directional markers, not transitory.

• Where, for example, is "(H. Milne-Edwards, 1870) " etc. referenced/explained?

• The "authorities" are from Mammal Species of the World, e.g. here's an online version of the Ursidae section: [20]. I can add explicit cites if you think I should? The names/dates are weird in the bio world, sources just slap them next to the latin names as if it's common knowledge that "H. Milne-Edwards, 1870" first described the Ailuropoda genus.

• Likewise "David, 1869" etc.
• The range map e.g. of giant panda, doesn't seem to closely match that provided by IUCN.

• Updated the image, after reminding myself how to use Inkscape...

• "2,500-10,000" en-dash.

• Fixed

• It may be worth including a year for when the estimated populations are being given.

• It's implicitly the date of the citation; I can pull it into the text explicitly if needs be.

• I may have asked this before, but how are the range maps accessible to screen readers etc? Is the information available in another form?

• You did, which is why all the maps have a text description above them- e.g. "Andes mountains in South America", to cover both screen readers and if the reader doesn't recognize the area displayed on the map.

• How do the already-collapsed lists meet MOS:COLLAPSE?

• My understanding is that they way I've done it is fine because it doesn't collapse for screen readers, mobile devices, etc- on those it's expanded and can't be collapsed.

• "Tribe" suddenly appears, perhaps link to Tribe (biology)?

• Added in the summary paragraph.

The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Okay, addressed or responded to all these points. --PresN 02:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support passes my sourcing review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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