Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2021

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

Stanley Kubrick filmography

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list of Stanley Kubrick's films. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest directors. ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

• The second lead paragraph has an issue with repetitive "He directed A. Then he directed B. Then he directed C. Then he directed D." type of writing, especially in the beginning where we list off his documentaries and first feature film one by one.
• While the unfinished film may have been named by Kubrick after Pinocchio, linking the article on the character here gives one the impression that the link will take one to an article about the unfinished film - especially as it is italicized like a title. I would suggest unlinking it.
• The wording of the annotation Also editor, director of special effects, and breathing sounds read literally means that Kubrick was the breathing sounds rather than that he made them
• Looks good otherwise. Please ping me when you have addressed the above and I will take another look.--Alexandra^IDV 10:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV I've worked on the prose. ~ HAL333 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support on prose, although I am unsure re: the concerns over criterion 3c that RunningTiger123 brought up.--Alexandra^IDV 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally support on 3c with the addition of the reception list--Alexandra^IDV 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

The only thing I can add to the above is that the prose is a bit choppy in places, with short sentences which could be joined together, e.g. "His final film was the erotic thriller Eyes Wide Shut starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. The film was released posthumously in 1999" - that seven-word sentence could easily be joined to the previous one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV, ChrisTheDude I have done some work addressing the 3c issues. ~ HAL333 21:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose – While this page is well-done, I just don't see how this is long enough to justify a stand-alone list. Per FL criterion #3c, featured lists "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", but at just 16 items, this is so short that it could easily go in the article Stanley Kubrick. I also checked other FLs for director filmographies, and the shortest I could find is probably Christopher Nolan filmography, which is almost twice as long (and likely to grow). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC) RunningTiger123 Would merging it with List of recurring cast members in Stanley Kubrick films or maybe List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick fix that? ~ HAL333 19:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I don't think the former is a good option. Kubrick's collaborations seem to have been more by happenstance than the result of a serious working relationship, so I don't think they're particularly notable, especially since most of them are just in two films. (Compare it to something like List of frequent David Lynch collaborators; Lynch's relationships seem more deliberate, span more works, and are documented in third-party sources.) The accolades list is also not great, since normally filmographies and accolades are kept separate and Kubrick has enough accolades to justify a separate list. The best option might be Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects, though I definitely think you should get a better consensus than just my opinion before doing that. Maybe a discussion at Talk:Filmography of Stanley Kubrick with links to the discussion at Talk:Stanley Kubrick and Talk:Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects would be good so other people can consider what the best option might be. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I've been able to think it over. I agree with your concern about merging List of recurring cast members in Stanley Kubrick films - I would not be able to find sources for several of those actors anyway. And I don't think that I would be able to merge Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects without losing most of its content and/or giving it undue weight. Why should a script he considered in the 1950s have 10 times the content that 2001 does? That leaves List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick, which I actually split from the article, which used to be Filmography and Awards of Stanley Kubrick. As Kubrick wasn't exactly a massive award-winner, I think I can add the content in a tight little table. It also fits nicely with my discussion of his personal wins in the final lede paragraph. Would that be okay? ~ HAL333 20:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I see your point about the unrealized projects. The awards could work, though there are quite a few awards that aren't listed on the other page (WGA and DGA need to be added, and some of the critics' groups listed on IMDb may merit mention). Again, though, I think this needs to be discussed by other people, as my opinion isn't the only one that matters for this review. Community consensus is the most important part of the review process, and that should be our focus. Heck, if other people review this list and can come to the consensus that it meets criterion #3c as is, I'll remove my "oppose" vote. I just think this is something that needs to be duly considered. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Link to discussion ~ HAL333 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Also, that old version of the page that you linked included a section titled "Cameos and other work". Is there a reason that disappeared? RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I couldn't find any reliable sources to support them. ~ HAL333 23:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC) That's what I figured, I just wanted to check. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Okay, I've seen something else that might work for this. I saw that the new FL candidate M. Night Shyamalan filmography includes a table summarizing critical reception for Shyamalan's films – i.e. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and CinemaScore grades. I think this would be a great option to add to this page and give it more content to stand on its own. The article for Kubrick doesn't contain this information, so as it stands currently, the information is spread across the individual film articles. Summarizing it here seems reasonable. What do you think? RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) RunningTiger123  Done ~ HAL333 17:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Are the numbers accurate? The scores for 2001: A Space Odyssey in particular appear wrong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Just double-checked and fixed them. Sorry about that. ~ HAL333 19:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – With the addition of a reception section, this page now has enough information to stand on its own, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• My first thought when I started reading was that it would be really difficult to write a good lead for a Stanley Kubrick list ... he went in so many different directions in his career. But you did it, and made it hang together ... well done.
• I don't have a preference, but "Dr. Strangelove" (as a film title, not a person) is normally alphabetized under D rather than S (and this is where you put it in the second table, but not in the first). In the second table, A Clockwork Orange should be filed under C, not A. Also, don't alphabetize these under "The": The Killing, The Seafarers, The Shining. Otherwise, the coding in the table seems fine.

Addressed. ~ HAL333 19:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. You make good use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• General: I think the formal awards he received for his work are more important than the critical reception from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, so I'd expect to see all those nominations and awards listed in a table here. Ok, it's listed as a "See also". Perhaps put {{main}} at the top of the section instead?
• "13 feature films and three" comparable figures should be all words or all numbers.
• "It was Kubrick's last film that he did not also write" the table seems to imply he was a writer on Lolita but just not credited.
• "2001 garnered ..." we're encouraged to avoid starting sentences with a numeral...
• You mention Vladimir Nabokov but not Anthony Burgess?

Good point. ~ HAL333 18:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• The lead talks about critics but doesn't seem to relate to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, I mean for example FMJ which is pretty iconic, and that's related in the second table but not mentioned at all in the lead.
• Check references for those which require subscriptions (e.g. the NYT) which need url-access=subscription adding to the cite template.
• Ref 5 -> "The" Independent.
• Ref 54, The Guardian is a work.

Not sure what's happening. It's a work in the code, but isn't italicized. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ~ HAL333 04:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There was an errant apostrophe in the title, I fixed it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Why is "British filmographies" a category?

From my understanding, some of the editors at Stanley Kubrick insist that he is British and the category was an addition done years back. Although born American, Kubrick moved to a country estate in the UK, where he made the rest of his films. I'm largely indifferent to the issue, but I'm fine removing it if you find it inappropriate. ~ HAL333 04:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's just that there's a category here that isn't reflected or mentioned in the article at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed. ~ HAL333 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 18:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Shouldn't it be |url-access=registration for the NYT?
  • it's missing for ref 50 as well
• ref 56 doesn't have Ebert listed as the author link the others

Reliability

• no doubts here, all reputable news sources

Verifiability

• the link for ref 43 seems to be broken Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the source review, Aza. ~ HAL333 22:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments from Birdienest81 Shouldn't the titles of the references (i.e. NYT, Variety) be wikilinked? I don't care if you do it every time or the first mention. I've never really seen much use in doing that and have always thought that it was just a matter of personal preference. But, I may be wrong, and, if you can point me towards the policy, I'll be happy to oblige. ~ HAL333 15:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Ref 4 is actually from DGA Quaterly which has its own article here on Wikipedia. Done. ~ HAL333 15:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Refs 15 and 25 are from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the organization behind the Oscars) Good catch. ~ HAL333 15:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC) That's from a quick rundown. I see more, but I'll elaborate further soon. Nevertheless, these should be easy to fix and the list looks almost ready for FL status. --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Most of my other concerns were raised up by SNUGGUMS. Well done.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS

I decided to be bold and move this nomination page to match the main article's name since that got retitled before the FLC concluded. Apologies for any inconvenience, but I thought it would be easier to have the titles be consistent. Now to assess the list's content: It concerns me how File:KubrickForLook.jpg lacks a source URL. Having one would make it easier to verify that was properly licensed. The two uploaders are gone (MIA since 2015 and blocked). Left a note on the Kubrick talkpage. ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC) That's quite unfortunate :/. If I do come across something, then I might go ahead and add a link myself. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Not convinced it's appropriate to include clips here like File:Fear and Desire (1953).webm, regardless of copyright status. That above all else seems decorative. Readers come to this page for information about his films. If having one of his full early movies helps someone, why not? It doesn't detract from the article imo. ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC) To my knowledge, this isn't a very common practice for filmography pages, and such clips more often tend to be found in individual movie pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Fair enough. Since this is already available on his main biography, I removed it. ~ HAL333 19:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Similarly, I'd remove the posters File:Paths of Glory (1957 poster).jpg, File:Lolita (1962 film poster).jpg, and File:Clockwork Orange Trailer poster.png, which should be saved for their respective film articles. I'm kind of a big fan of those... ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC) What do they add to this page besides decoration, though? At least they're not copyrighted. I would certainly oppose using non-free images when free ones are available. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC) "Razzie Award" should read "Golden Raspberry Award" When Kubrick (as far as I know) wasn't credited as a writer, director, or producer for A.I. Artificial Intelligence, maybe it shouldn't even be mentioned in the prose The film was drafted and produced (Kubrick's company) by and dedicated to Kubrick. I also just think it's an important, albeit posthumous, event of Kubrick's career. ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I don't think there should be a referral note linking to List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick under "Critical response" when reviews and accolades are separate matters. It seems better for the "See also" section. Ref#8 is missing its "y" from "Film Quarterly" Don't italicize RogerEbert.com, Golden Globe Awards, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, BAFTA, Directors Guild of America, BBC, The Criterion Collection, Turner Classic Movies, Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic I wasn't able to fix the "Golden Globe Awards" one... ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC) To avoid italics, you can move text to "publisher" field or bypass the ones "work" generates by adding such code to it. I've done the latter here for you to demonstrate an example. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC) You learn something new everyday. ~ HAL333 19:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC) That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Everything else addressed. I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC) You're welcome :). The main qualm I still have is with his portrait. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Yeah it's annoying: Kubrick was very camera-shy and, as a result, Commons' images of him are sparse. I actually tried to replace that image on Kubrick's bio with one from later life. The discussion was quite contentious and went nowhere. ~ HAL333 19:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC) As long as that other pic you mentioned is properly licensed and has some link to help verify authenticity/copyright details, I would have no objections to using it here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC) SchroCat got it deleted, but there are a few others at Commons. Are any of those viable? ~ HAL333 22:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Your best bet would be File:Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove Trailer (4) Cropped.jpg. I've checked the trailer it says this shot comes from, and that thankfully contains it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)  Done ~ HAL333 23:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You now have my support following sufficient changes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick drive-by comments from Sdkb

• Two quick comments on the external links section: I think it's just "Rotten Tomatoes", not "the Rotten Tomatoes".

Done. ~ HAL333 15:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• It'd be nice to have some indication of who designed the kubrick.life site, rather than just having a bare link.

It seems to have been created by no one of note. I added "educational site" as I figure the names wouldn't have been of much help. ~ HAL333 15:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 19:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [2].

---

MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it satisfies FL criteria. Information in this list is sourced (which is rather easy given MTV's comprehensive archives), and it is also informative regarding the awards' history and selection. Any comment will be very much appreciated. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Eminem holds the record for the most nominations, with seven nominations as a solo artist" - are the words "as a solo artist" actually needed here?

• There is one extra nomination as a group member of D12, so I think it's better to include "as a solo artist", HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, I missed that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• "For artists who are not from the U.S." - I think "Among artists who are not from the U.S." would be better, personally

• Fixed, HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Road to Nowhere is missing it closing quote mark

• Added, HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• "David Lee Roth (1985), U2 (1988), and Lady Gaga (2010) are the only performers to have two Video of the Year nominations in one night" - Missy Elliott had two in 2001, Rihanna had two in 2012, and Kendrick Lamar had two in 2015 as well

• Curiously MTV (apparently) does not count featured/guest appearances. For instance, the "Telephone" (Lady Gaga ft. Beyonce) win for Best Collaboration was counted for Gaga only ([3]). Revised "as a lead artist", HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• In 2013 there's a random stray curly bracket at the end of the first nominee

• I think it's fixed now, HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments! I have responded as above. HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ashleyyoursmile

• I think the first link on MTV should be on ref 2 and not on ref. 6. Accordingly, any target on MTV should be removed from subsequent references.
• Link on Billboard should be removed from refs 8 and 43, since its already linked on ref 5.

Great work with the list. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I have added wikilinks to all references, as it does not constitute WP:OVERLINK. HĐ (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying. I support this for promotion. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• In the lead, you have both 2019 and 2020 as years that You Need to Calm Down was awarded. According to the table, it looks like the 2020 one at the end of the second paragraph is incorrect.
  • Whoops, corrected. HĐ (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• According to WP:LAYOUT, the see also section should go before the notes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comments. I have addressed them accordingly, HĐ (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would encourage you to add ALT text to the MTV logo in the infobox.

• Added. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• For this part, is the most prestigious competitive award, is it necessary to clarify that it is a competitive award? I know the VMAs do honorary awards, like the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, but I am uncertain this clarification is really necessary.

• I think it could be removed altogether. I don't think keeping it as merely the most prestigious would be convincing given that the Vanguard is more (or less) celebrated. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is more of a clarification question, but does this award only go to the performer(s) and not the music video director or anyone else associated with production?

• Yes, the award goes to the performers, as indicated at MTV's archive list. The directors/producers have their own category (Best Direction/Editing/Cinematography, if I am correct). I was kind of surprised to find out so, but I guess that's probably why the MTV VMAs are more popular than the Grammys for Music Videos in terms of teen popularity. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation! That was what I got from the list, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk)

• I think this part, the winners are determined by viewers' votes through MTV's website, would read better like, viewers vote for the winners through MTV's website, as it would put it in the active tense and avoid having two similar sentences in a row.

• I think it's okay to keep it as it is, to make in consistent with the previous sentence's wording. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Understandable. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• For parts like these, Eminem with "The Real Slim Shady" (2000) and "Without Me" (2002), I would think it should be "for" not "with" as those artists won the awards for these videos.

• Fixed. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. My suggestions are very nitpick-y as the list is already very strong. It is interesting to think about how the VMAs (and award ceremonies in general) have changed over the years. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and far more out of touch with new music trends, but I did not even watch or remember much of the last VMA show lol. Either way, I will support this when my comments are addressed, and I hope you are having a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them accordingly. Your help is always very much appreciated! HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am glad that I can help. I support this list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Some sources, e.g. NYT appear to require a subscription, so that means adding url-access=subscription to the citations.
• Does ref 1 refer to this as "the most prestigious"?
• "Since 2006, the " bit Easter eggy, so perhaps "Since the 2006 awards," and pipe "the 2006 awards".
• "most nominations, with seven nominations " repetitive use of nominations.
• "second most" should be hyphenated when used adjetively.
• And do you need "is the artist with" or would "has" just suffice?
• " in one night" odd, maybe "in one ceremony" or "at a single awards" or something.
• " Video Vanguard Award " what's that? Not explained anywhere here.
• Image captions which are complete sentences should end with a full stop.
• "Girls Just Want to Have Fun " is unnecessarily piped.
• Why is "This Note's for You" linked? Is it not notable?
• "Cryin'" is unnecessarily piped.
• "featuring The LOX" should be "the LOX".
• "Jesus Walks" is unnecessarily piped.
• Pussycat Dolls has "The" in front of it.
• You use different pipes for Humble in table and image caption.
• Worth noting how many of these also won the MTV Europe Music Award for Best Video.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them. HĐ (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GagaNutella

Uproxx and Radio.com aren't in italic, use publisher=; Done. HĐ (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Note b: write Kendrick Lamar instead of just Lamar. If someone goes directly into that section, he/she might not understand; Done. HĐ (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Use "." or remove it in the photos' caption; I included the full stop in captions that are full sentences, and excluded which are not. HĐ (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC) I'd let the reference about the EMA in the ref section, not after the music's name, use <br> between them. I think it is better to include the ref next to the EMA winner, to justify the bg-color and the dagger. HĐ (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC) The list is very cohesive and well written! GagaNutellatalk 20:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you very much for your comments :) HĐ (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I now support. GagaNutella^talk 02:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from MaranoFan

The list looks great. I just have a few questions.

• "Eminem holds the record for the most nominations, with seven as a solo artist" -- Does Eminem have more nominations with a group? If so that should be mentioned with a footnote, and if not I think "as a solo artist" is redundant here. Even "as a lead artist" will probably be a better term to use.

• He does. I added a note to explain, and revised it to "lead artist". HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the nationalities are relegated to brackets? (instead of "Barbadian singer Rihanna and Irish band U2")

• I did so to fit in with the country name "the U.S." for American artists. HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "an honorary award for artist who had "profound impact" on music video and popular culture" -- Is "artists" and "music videos" being singular here grammatically correct?

• Changed to plural. HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "performers" seems like a weird substitute for "artists" in the context of this list since this category doesn't inherently have anything to do with performing. I would suggest sticking to "artists", "recipients", "nominees", etc.

• Changed to "artists". HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

--NØ 12:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I believe I have addressed them all :) HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support now :)--NØ 02:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved

File:MTV Logo 2010.svg, File:Sinéad O’Connor (cropped).jpg, File:The new Smashing Pumpkins 02.jpg, File:Madonna Rebel Heart Tour 2015 - Stockholm (23051472299) (cropped).jpg are A-OK to use I'll assume good faith that File:Peter Gabriel-Conspiracy of Hope-by Steven Toole.jpg are the uploaders' own work as claimed when no evidence suggests otherwise Maybe you could replace File:Eminem live at D.C. 2014 (cropped).jpg with a more forward-facing view of Eminem The microphone in File:Rihanna Diamonds World Tour 2013 (Cropped).png covers too much of Rihanna's face Beyoncé looks rather unhappy in File:BeyonceFWT10.jpg. Maybe find one where she's more upbeat? File:Kendrick Lamar 3 F.I.B. 2016 (cropped).jpg is black-and-white. I'm sure you can find a color photo of Kendrick to use. How are EMA wins relevant here when that's a separate award? Yes, I'm aware of how The Rambling Man recommended including that bit, though I don't understand the reasoning for that. On a simialar note, you can safely remove this and Grammys from the "See also" when those are also different accolades. I think these are both awards held by MTV, and given one's popularity in the States and the other in Europe, I think it offers an interesting comparison. HĐ (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC) They definitely are both MTV Awards, I just feel the details on EMA wins are better for that page than this one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I adjusted the images as you recommended. Regarding the MTV EMA thing... I would like to hear from The Rambling Man as well. HĐ (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Can't remember, struck me while I was reviewing and there was a good reason for it but it's gone. Do as you like, it's there and informative and interesting but if you are so mortified by its inclusion, remove it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC) I wouldn't go so far to say "mortified", just feel it's out of place here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Given that there is little connection between the VMAs and the EMAs, I have removed the bit. I choose to keep the link to the EMAs Video of the Year in the "See also" section, however. HĐ (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I now support for FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed (you had one cite as "cite journal" instead of "cite web", which I fixed since it wasn't to an academic journal); promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [4].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Hungary

Nominator(s): Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hungary has 8 WHS and 11 sites on the tentatative list. The style is following the WHS lists that have been promoted so far. Since Greece and Cypruss are seeing good support so far, I am nominating a new list. Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not wishing to be a party pooper, but I've been told in the past (by the FL director) that an editor shouldn't have three FLCs open at one time, so it might be best to wait until either Cyprus or Greece has been promoted........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had three open if the other two had a strong support (which I interpret they have at the moment). But if this is a problem, this one can be put on stand-by. --Tone 21:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• You don't need "As of 2021", this isn't something rapidly going out of date.
• Budapest row has an extra column
• "within the Hungarian nation" is really weird, "of the Hungarian people" or something reads better. You're paraphrasing too closely to the source again.
• "erected to commemorate the thousandth anniversary of the conquest of Hungary in 896" is lifted straight from the source without even paraphrase. Please write everything in your own voice.
• "The Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century" again just copied.
• Esztergom should have a description even if the UNESCO site doesn't
• The external link should have (in Hungarian) after the link

Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• • @Reywas92: I think I'm done. I'd leave "as of 2021", since nominations at least are updated rather often in some cases, and new sites are added every year (not to every country, of course). Are you using some tool to find paraphrasings too close? I know there used to be one, that would be helpful in future. Thank you for the review! --Tone 10:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • No, I can just tell when the wording doesn't sound as natural like the above ("thousandth") and ctrl-F on the unesco site. There were others I found but these were the longest that needed to be changed. Noticing in your edit that Esztergom has been rolled into the newer Royal Seats nomination, I'm guessing it could just be deleted. I'm wondering if the Hungarian cultural office has its own site like [5]/[6] that has its own list rather than all sources being only to UNESCO. Anyway, Support, and a review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1 would be appreciated if you have a chance. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Well, sometimes the old nominations are removed by the committee and sometimes they persist. There does not seem to be a strict rule. But, as long they are listed on the UNESCO site, they should be here as well... I will have a look at the list you mention. --Tone 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comments One of the others has closed so this one is definitely OK to stay open now........ "The first two sites in Hungary were on the list" => "The first two sites in Hungary were added to the list" "These were the village of Hollókő and Budapest, the Banks of the Danube" - I would change the second part to just "the city of Budapest" to make it more concise (I know the official name was longer than that but I think it makes it harder to read "Budapest was created with the unification of three cities" => "Budapest was created by the unification of three cities" "Among the few man-made structures in the plains" => "Among the few man-made structures on the plains" "were influenced with art from Italy and France" => "were influenced by art from Italy and France" Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: done, thank you! I also expanded the intro with a suggestion from one of the previous nominations. --Tone 14:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Comment "The first two sites in Hungary were added to the list [......] These were the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest, the Banks of the Danube with the district of Buda Castle" - I still think this reads a little oddly. Depending on how you read it, it could be that "the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest" is one site and the rest is the second, or possibly that there are three or even four different sites mentioned, which doesn't agree with the previous sentence. I think it should either be shorted to simply "the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest" or else the sundry part of the Budapest site should be in brackets, eg "the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest (the latter including the Banks of the Danube and the district of Buda Castle)" or "the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest (the latter specifically covering the Banks of the Danube and the district of Buda Castle)". Does that make sense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC) I agree, this is clumsy. What about now? Adding the parenthesis would just make more problems since I already used one set. --Tone 15:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Works for me, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Spaced hyphens in refs 23, 24 and in the "Komárno - Komárom*" title, should all be en-dashes.
• You link "Buda Castle" in "Buda Castle Quarter" in the title of the site and then in the description you don't link castle but link the quarter, despite mentioning the castle first. I would link the quarter in the title and the castle itself in the description.
• Where's the Metro Line M1 mentioned in the source?
• "Counties" no reason for that to be capitalised.
• "landscape.The " space before The.
• "Several 18th and 19th-century" I would have "18th- and 19th-century" here.
• Don't link empty cells, put a centred em-dash for sites with no images in the image column.
• "The largest ... the largest..." repetitive prose.
• Could find a link for stud farm.

That's it on a quick run. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Fixed, thanks! As for the dashes in the empty figures, in lists such as Cyprus I am not using anything. I'd like to be consistent on that. --Tone 09:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• You link the second use of 'Buda Castle'.
  • Fixed.
• I cannot see in the citation where it says that Buda Castle was the residence of Hungarian monarchs.
  • Removed, this is indeed not directly stated.
• The only dates in the Budapest description are in the 19th century. I think you should give the age of the sites.
  • I added some. The architecture styles also indicate the age, indirectly.
• Perhaps worth quoting that Budapest is "one of the world's outstanding urban landscapes"?
  • I somehow suspect that another reviewer will call this "tourist brochure talk" ;)
• "the thousandth anniversary of the conquest of Hungary". By who?
  • Rewritten, does it makes sense now? I didn't want to write "Hungarian conquest of Hungary", that is just superflouos.

• That is OK, but how about "Magyar conquest ofHungary"?

• I was considering it but Hungary got its name only afterwards, after Hungarians, so that's still not perfect.

• "the area has no permanent residents". The citation says "almost no permanent residents"
  • Fixed.
• "Several 18th- and 19th-century villages and castles" The citation does not mention castles. It says 12 and 13C towns and villages and 18 and 19C palaces.
  • I actually copied that from the description in Austria's list. Good that you spotted it, I will fix it there as well. Not sure how this happened.
• "Tokaj Wine Region, which was formally established in 1737 by Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor". Perhaps worth saying that wine production is documented back to 1561.
  • Sounds good, added.
• "It contains the remains of a shallow sea from the Miocene epoch." This is wrong. The Miocene started 23 million years ago and the citation says the sea dates to 24 million years ago.
  • Good point, I added "mostly" since 23-19 MA is Miocene. Neogene starts together with Neogene, if I wanted to cover broader I'd have to write Paleogene and Neogene, which is very broad. Makes sense?

• I am still not sure it is correct. The source says 24 million years old, not starting then and continuing into the Miocene. Why not just say 24 million years old?

• The way I read the reference is that the sediments were piling up from 24 MA to 19 MA when they were covered following a volcanic eruption. So it is not only 24, it is the entire period.

• The expert report at [7] says 24 to 21 mya. The Oligocene was from 34 to 23 mya and the Miocene from 23 to 5 mya, so how about "late Oligocene and early Miocene"? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I like that. Great :)

• "Hungarian architect Ödön Lechner". Is there a reason the link is here and not in the first mention in 'Site'?
  • Where there is no dedicated article (such as The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier), I try to link the geographic article in the site, but here it is a person. Not sure if this is the best reasoning.
• "in the 17th and 18th centuries, following the 150-year Ottoman reign". This is odd on several counts. Ottoman rule is not mentioned in the citation, it only covered part of Hungary, and it ended in 1699 so some of the towers were built during Ottoman rule.
  • It mentions the Ottomans (Turks) but I agree, the whole sentence is confusing. I rewrote that part, in a more extensive manner.
• This is an interesting article, but checking a few points shows up several errors. I think it needs a thorough source check. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: I'm through. Thank you for a detailed review, as always! --Tone 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Assuming ref 10 should have a date like ref 7

Reliability

• No issues here. All refs are from the UNESCO website—which is standard with UNESCO lists; Dorling Kindersley is a reputable publisher

Verifiability

• Need a page number for ref 21 Aza24 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aza24: Could I ask for a your opinion here? This reference is copied from the stud farm article, AGF, in order to justify the wikilnk the Furioso-North Star, since the UNESCO reference only mentions the Mezohegyes halfbred. I could use the reference from that article, Reddick, Kate. Horses. New York, Ridge Press, 1976, p. 64., but that one is missing ISBN. I found a bunch of horse-related websites but I am not sure which one could be considered as reliable here. I fixed the ref 10 date. --Tone 08:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • (I moved your comment below where I'm assuming you meant to respond) Tone, I search in the google book, can you tell if are either of these two pages the right one from the snippet preview(s)? Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Ha, perfect, thanks :) --Tone 09:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note: the tables in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption) for screen reading software to detect, which can be inside of an {{sronly}} template if it would duplicate the section header. I've gone ahead and done it for you here (it's a relatively recent requirement, and not always enforced as it should be), but please keep it in mind for future lists

Promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Victoria Cross recipients from the British 2nd Division

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In an effort to save space on the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, a series of sub-articles was created. This list documents the ~40 gentlemen who earned the Victoria Cross, while they served with the division throughout four different wars (the Crimean War, the Second Boer War, and the First and Second World Wars). I initially put this up reviewed at A-Class standard, but was advised to proceed to here. I look forward to feedback and improving the list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "published in the The London Gazette" - stray word there

  Thanks for the catch, and removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Does ref 1 cover the whole first paragraph

  Yes. I could split the ref into two, although it would then be one ref for the first three sentences and another for the final sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• "eighteen members of the division were earned VCs" => "eighteen members of the division earned VCs"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Refs look better centred, IMHO

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a difference between Lieutenant (Acting Captain) and Lieutenant (temporary Captain)?

  Yes, but I cannot explain the difference. The Gazette uses that wording for those individual's ranks. I have looked at various sources, but cannot offer an explanation to what the difference between each (the explanations I have seen are, for me at least, beyond confusing). I have seen examples of acting officers becoming temporary officers and vice versa.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• The article isn't linked in the template at the bottom. It should either be linked or the template removed

  I have added the article to the template.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the review and comments. I have attempted to address your concerns with either comments or tweaks to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Really good lead and sourcing. ThanksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Image needs alt text for accessibility. I have entered some alt-text, although I am not sure its the bestEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Names should sort by last name – use Template:Sortname or data-sort-value=Last, First. Template insertedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Sources column should be unsortable. Tweaked madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Consider changing from absolute to relative column widths – allows for better use of screen space. I have updated the columns, hopefully this works? The links to Battle of Inkerman for Thomas Beach and Battle of Colenso for William Babtie are confusing, since every other link in the column is to a place. I would replace or remove them. I have updated the links, so that they go to the actual location and not the battle.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address all of your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – Whoever suggested posting this here had a great idea; this is a great list! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Further comment

• The table has been made sortable since I looked previously. I am afraid this means you will now need to wikilink any item that appears multiple times each time it appears, not just the first. Hopefully this can be done relatively painlessly with a search-and-replace...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  I have just made an edit to the article to add in links for everything. It looks really wrong to me lol. But, hopefully, this is the now in the correct standard for a list?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support (I fixed a redlink for you) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Image is freely licensed, per my evaluation at the ACR.[9] (t · c) buidhe 10:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• I am not sure that "Russian Empire" is a "country". I mean, you use "India" or "Colony of Natal", not British Empire.
• Why are we told that Natal is a colony. You don't use Republic of France' or 'Kingdom of Belgium'.

  I have not made changes in reference to either of these two point just yet. My understanding is that "Russian Empire" was the name of the state, the Crimea being part of it, and not one of the empire's colonies or territories outside of the core (i.e. Alaska, Finland, Poland etc.). I am more than happy to reword this, but I don't think "Russia" would suffice as it would appear to refer more to the modern state? I concede the point on Natal, I can change that to just Natal?

Russia was Russia before it was an empire, while it was an empire and after it ceased to be an empire. Just like Britain. If the fighting had been in Kent, not Crimeria, would you not have written "Britain", not "British Empire"?

That is a fair point. I have piped the link to the Russian Empire to just state Russia. Likewise, for Natal.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• For the hyphenated ranks see MOS:HYPHEN: "Do not use a capital letter after a hyphen except for a proper name".

  I just wanted to check in on this one, prior to making changes. The Gazette capitalizes both parts of the rank, and this is the way the rank is wrote in other sources. Would this not be considered a proper name then? Or, would that only apply if it was used in a sentence i.e. "blah blah Brevet-Major John Conolly..."? Checking in primarily for my own confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Bleh! Usually I am strong on the MoS, but you raise a good point - which I had missed - and the Gazette is the RS. False alarm, apologies, leave them as they are.

• Why do you give the departments for some locations - Oppy, Pas-de-Calais - but not others - Delville Wood?

  For Oppy, I had just left it alone based off the article name. I have piped it, so there is conformity.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• In cites 3 and 4, several uses of "p." should be 'pp.'.

  Thanks for the catch, I have fixed these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Victoria Cross Heroes" is missing a publisher location.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• As is "The Evolution of the Victoria Cross".

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Midas books" → 'Midas Books'.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "after the conclusion of hostilities, it was stood-down." I am not sure that "stood-down" is the appropriate expression. Eg, see Wikt:stand-down: A time when soldiers are not on alert.

  I have reworded this to disbandedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "It was again raised". Perhaps 'formed' instead of "raised"?

  Tweaked accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "so its forces could be reassigned elsewhere". "elsewhere" from where? (I suggest deletion.)

  Word removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "by soldiers who had been part of the division" → 'by soldiers who were part of the division'.

  Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "the division had not been in battle". "had" → 'has'.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A great list. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As always, thank you for your time in reviewing another article. I have attempted to address the majority of your comments, and left a few of my own were changes have not been made just yet.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note: the table in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption), which can be inside of an {{sronly}} template if it would duplicate the section header; column headers should be tagged with scope="col", and the cells of the primary (first) column should be tagged with scope="row". These are to allow screen reading software to parse the tables correctly. I've gone ahead and done this for you; if you bring future lists to FLC please keep this in mind. Beyond that, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [10].

---

List of presidents of Georgetown University

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my first FL nomination, so feedback from the FL regulars would be much appreciated. I've improved this article several times over the years, most significantly in the past week, and believe it meets the FL criteria. Thanks in advance. Ergo Sum 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments from HAL You should center the refs in the column. Use |style="text-align:center;"| Done. Ergo Sum 18:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC) president of Georgetown University doesn't need to be bolded. Done. Ergo Sum 18:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC) You should add scope to the column with their names. User !scope=row| I think I've done it correctly here. Is the bolded text and darker cell background supposed to be the correct output (instead of for the number column)? Ergo Sum 19:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC) The lede looks good. But it could be better. I think you could expand the third paragraph by noting some trends and nuances. Gender, shortest-serving, their background, other interesting things, etc. There's not a whole lot more I think can be put into the lede but I will do some digging. My only concern with trends was verifiability. I won't be able to find sources for trends, but would have to infer it from the table below. Not 100% sure whether that's allowed by policy. Ergo Sum 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC) I've fleshed out the third paragraph with trends about religious order membership and how many went on to become bishops, etc. I can't think of/find a whole lot more to add to the lede. Ergo Sum 01:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I'm not a huge fan of having the references in the notes column. I would move them to the ref column. The only reason I've done that is because there would otherwise be 4 or more links in the references column for some people, which seems unsightly and a bit confusing for readers. Right now, the references in the ref column support their order in the sequence and the dates of their office. I admit it's not a great setup to have some refs in the ref column and some in the notes column, but I'm not sure how else to do it. Ergo Sum 19:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC) It would be nice if you put a few of the better portraits of the presidents to the right of the table. I have correctly licensed portraits for every president but one. I considered creating a column for portraits between number and name (e.g. List of presidents of Washington College). Do you think it would be better to do that or just have a couple to the right of the table? The only downside to having a dedicated column would be that it would lengthen the table and create some empty space for people with nothing in the notes column. Ergo Sum 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC) That's all for now. I'll be back. ~ HAL333 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: Have you had a chance to take a look at my comments? Ergo Sum 20:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comments I agree that the lead is a bit "thin" and could do with a bit of expansion I will see what else can be added. Ergo Sum 19:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC) As I mentioned above a moment ago, I've fleshed out the third paragraph with what I could find in terms of extra detail. Ergo Sum 01:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC) When sorting on the "No" column, the dash against Quain jumps to the top. You need to use a hidden sort template to make it sort between 44 and 45 Done. Ergo Sum 19:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC) On that note, why does Quain not have a number against his spell as acting president, yet the other two who served in that capacity do have a number? This has perplexed me. In virtually every source mentioning Georgetown presidents, there is no mention of Quain. However, the third Curran book lists Quain as an acting president in the list of presidents. The problem with this is that whenever a president is referred to as the 48th, 47th, etc. president, that numbering must omit Quain in the order, otherwise, the number would be one higher. Ergo Sum 19:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC) After thinking about it, I've removed Quain from the list. I looked up his position and he was chairman of the board. So, while it may be true that he "acted" as president, I don't think he was actually an "acting" president in the same sense as the other acting presidents (which conventionally receive a number). The Curran source, while authoritative, seems to be an anomaly on the question of Quain, so I will go with the rest of the sources. Ergo Sum 19:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Refs should be centred, as mentioned above Done. Ergo Sum 19:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Notes against Grassi need a full stop at the end I'm not sure what you mean. I've used periods to separate groupings of notes and semicolons within groupings. E.g. all positions are separated by semicolons but positions from alumni status are separated by periods. Ergo Sum 19:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC) I can't remember the page, but there's a MOS page that says that in a case where you combine multiple sentence fragments in something like a note, if you have full stops anywhere then you need a full stop at the end. So in the note against Grassi, because you have a full stop after "Rector of the Pontificio Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide (1840–1842)" then the whole note needs to end with a full stop. Does that help? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Oh, I see. I'll fix that. Ergo Sum 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC) NB It only applies if there is a full stop anywhere in the note -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Same with Fenwick's first spell Conversely, the notes on Fenwick's second spell have a full stop but shouldn't Just spotted at least three more where the notes need a full stop at the end. In essence, if you have a full stop in the middle of the notes, you need one at the end as well. You say that two different people, more than 60 years apart, are both sometimes referred to as Georgetown's "second founder" - is this correct? Yes, this is unusual, but there are reliable refs referring to both as a second founder. If I'm just speculating here, I think when people started referring to Healy as the second founder, they had forgotten that Grassi was already called the second founder. Ergo Sum 19:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Fair enough. Just checking it wasn't some sort of copy+paste error -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Timeline diagram looks weird - why do the "blocks" jump back up to the top in 1858? I made the timeline a while ago but am not really sure it adds much to the article. Same goes for other timelines on other university president articles. I've considered scrapping it altogether. Do you think it is useful to have? The reason I made the line jump is because the purpose is to visually represent the length of time each served in office. Because there were so many presidents, one would be unable to see thee whole list if it were only vertical. Ergo Sum 19:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC) TBH I am not sure it adds that much to the article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I'm inclined to remove it. Perhaps HAL333 might care to weigh in? Ergo Sum 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I would support removing it. ~ HAL333 21:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Removed. Ergo Sum 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sdkb

Comments from Sdkb I'm glad to see another college people list being put forward after my recent nom. This looks very close to being ready for support. A few comments: Some of the sentences in the last paragraph of the lead, such as for William Matthews (priest), read like caveats. These might be better if converted to {{Efn}} footnotes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC) I've tweaked para 3 a bit so I think this has been resolved. Ergo Sum 02:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Looks fine. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I noticed you decided not to include {{Timeline Georgetown University presidents}}; I don't have a strong view as to whether it adds enough to be worth including or not. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC) I created that template a while ago but removed after discussion found above. I don't really think such tables add anything to an article and might go so far as to be a bit gimmicky. I'd ideally like to see their use not proliferate to other articles. That being said, if their occurrence becomes common on list articles, I'd consider re-adding it, but would rather like to see a community-wide discussion about them instead of an article-by-article discussion. Ergo Sum 02:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Makes sense. I can see both sides of the timeline vs. no timeline debate, so in the absence of wider consensus I'll defer to whatever your preference is. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC) The "SJ" and "SS" are undefined. I'd suggest adding either {{Abbr}} or a link, at least on their first occurrence. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC) I initially had the first use of SJ and SS linked but removed them for stylistic reasons. It looks a bit odd to me to have only one linked in the table but not others. My thought was that the meaning of SJ and SS can be gleaned by clicking on the individual's name, where the abbreviations are linked. Do you think this is inadequate? Ergo Sum 02:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I'd like to see something that doesn't require readers to click through to the person's page, yeah. A link that can be previewed or abbr could work. It could be over only the first instance, or it could be over every instance, since per MOS:DUPLINK, repetition is allowed for lists, since they are expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. I tend to err on the side of more links rather than fewer, since as a reader I find underlinking much more of an impediment than overlinking, but that's somewhat just my personal stylistic preference. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I've added links at the first instance. Ergo Sum 03:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Many of the presidents are old enough that their images are in the public domain, so I think the visuals could be improved. You could either add a portrait column, as at President of the University of Michigan, or you could add selected portraits on the side, which would double as a way to highlight the more notable presidents. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Added images. Ergo Sum 02:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Looks good! The current one renders a little small since it's horizontal, so you could try cropping to make it square and see if that's better, but it's acceptable either way. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I've enlarged them slightly. Ergo Sum 03:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as my concerns are addressed, and article overall looks to be in featured shape. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I like the timline Sdkb mentioned! I would think it's inclusion in this list could only be an improvement; List of presidents of the University of Illinois System, which is also at FLC right now, just added one as well, if that's any reassurance. Aza24 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Please see my related comments above. I welcome your input. Ergo Sum 02:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unrelated to sources, but is there a point in putting the start and end dates in different columns? They'll sort the same regardless
  • Not really. I'll combine them into one column. Ergo Sum 02:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

Sources

• Any identifier for Chambon, Célestin M. (1909)? OCLC, ISBN etc? (and for the other Catholic Encyclopedia refs, if possible)
  • Added OCLC. Ergo Sum 03:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Citations

• Is there a link for ref 48? Or if not, an ISSN might be helpful
  • There are only 46 citations. But, I've double checked all the refs and they all have links except two of the Curran books, for which there is no courtesy link available, but they have ISBNs listed. Ergo Sum 03:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I was rather talking about the last citation, 45. I'm assuming it's not a web source (since there's no link) I'm just wondering if there's any additional information that can be added (an ISSN for example) to increase verifiability. Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh, yes, the only link that I can find for that news article is in newspaper archive databases that are accessible only by subscription, which usually are not included as courtesy links. Ergo Sum 02:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Are we sure the NYT access status parameters should be different?
  • You are right. Fixed. Ergo Sum 03:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Aza24: have you had a chance to take a look at my responses? Ergo Sum 22:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the ping, I missed your last one, but it makes sense. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• No doubts here

Verifiability

• Spotchecks not done Aza24 (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments "{ class="wikitable sortable"" should be "{ class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"" to start off the main table Tables are not my forte. Is this a stylistic point or an MOS requirement? Ergo Sum 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC) I believe it's a bit of both. I know we're not supposed to be bold linking wikilinks, and all examples at WP:WHENTABLE use it. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Done. Ergo Sum 02:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Perhaps link ex officio somewhere, if appropriate. Linkedin. Ergo Sum 01:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC) "chartered by Congress" US Congress I'm assuming? Yes, clarified. Ergo Sum 01:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC) File:Timothy S. Healy.png: archive link is not present. Added. Ergo Sum 01:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC) In the most recent president's notes: "Georgetown alumnus." is not a complete sentence so a period is not required. Per the discussion above, I've been informed that the MOS requires periods in a paragraph if punctuation is used at all. Ergo Sum 01:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC) "white American university." perhaps "predominately white American university" as the source says. I don't believe there was actually a difference at this point in history, but I've modified it to be extra sure. Ergo Sum 01:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Healy notes aren't complete sentences, no need for periods. See above. Ergo Sum 01:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC) I'm seeing more generally notes section sentences using periods which really aren't sentences. Please clean up, . See above. Ergo Sum 01:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Ndash needed for year range in Curran, Robert Emmett (1993). Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC) The emdash for Curran, Robert Emmett (2010a) and Curran, Robert Emmett (2010b) should really be ndashes. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, Therapyisgood. Ergo Sum 01:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Support. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note: the table in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption), which can be inside of an {{sronly}} template if it would duplicate the section header. I've gone ahead and added it myself, but keep it in mind for future FLC nominations. Promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [11].

---

List of endemic birds of Borneo

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at a featured list. I've been working on this one for a few months, since finding it on the WP:BIRDS project list of articles in need of improvement, and I think it's ready. We have very few featured lists in the project (and even fewer so thoroughly sourced), and I'd like to help change that. MeegsC (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick driveby comments: the table needs colspan and rowspan tags (see MOS:DTAB) for accessibility, and the images need alt text (it can be basic, e.g. "drawing of a green bird"). Also note that you seem to be recreating {{IUCN statuses}} with an infobox, which is fine but just letting you know the option is there. --PresN 16:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

PresN thanks for pointing me to the IUCN statuses template; I didn't know about that one! I've added alt text for all pictures. I'm not clear on where to add the COLSPAN/ROWSPAN tags. Do I need to add those (i.e. |colspan=1 rowspan=1) for each element? Or can I do it once for the table? MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it as it was quicker than trying to explain (mainly because I mucked it up in the first place by saying "colspan" when I meant "colscopes", e.g. scope="col". That said, now that's done, it is strange that the first column, aka the "main" column, is the "taxon order" instead of the bird name. Taxon order just doesn't seem like the most important thing here; this may be because I don't fully understand it- it seems to just be the ordering that some list put bird genera/species in? E.g. they wrote out the tree of birds and flattened it into an excel table? I don't see how that ordering adds anything to the reader, it seems entirely arbitrary which order/family etc. was listed first, none of which is present in this table anyways. And if it's a fairly arbitrary ordering, even if helpful to bird researchers, to have, then I don't think it should be the primary column in the table even if that's what the table's default sort is. I'd expect the birds' names to be first, even if the table isn't default sorted alphabetical.

A second new point- the EBA column only has one possible value in this list (since Borneo only has one EBA), but I was surprised to see that as I expected to find the secondary EBA ids in that column too. That would make it more useful here; I'm not sure if you were just going for consistency with other lists and it's only odd because of the size of the country. --PresN 03:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

PresN, thanks for fixing the table. I'll have a look, so I know what to do in the future. As to why the list is in taxonomic order, that's standard for lists of birds. Those who are interested in birds are surely the most likely to use this list, and they're well-used to seeing things in this order; it's how all field guides are arranged, for example. Those who aren't used to this order can easily sort it by common or scientific name instead. That's why I used sortable columns. As for the EBA column, there are actually two values in the list; one of the secondary EBAs is there as well. (The other EBAs don't house species endemic only to Borneo.) I thought that readers might be interested to know which of Borneo's endemics could be found in the designated EBA(s), but if you and others think that it's extraneous information, I can certainly remove it. MeegsC (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: Source 9 is probably going to cause issues because it's a Google Docs spreadsheet with no clear author. Is there another source with the same information, or is there some way to prove that this source is reliable and not just a random Google Doc? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123, I've linked instead to the page that calls the spreadsheet. It shows the editors, publisher, etc. Would that be sufficient? MeegsC (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's better – it makes it clear who the original organization is. I'll try to do a more thorough review later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123, any chance you might have time to review this for me? I'd really love to know what I've done right and what needs more work. MeegsC (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting about this! To be honest, I don't have a lot of comments – this is in pretty good shape already. Just a few thoughts:

• Capitalize "The" at the start of bullet points in the section Endemic Bird Areas.
• I'm not a biology expert by any means, but what is the significance of the "Taxonomic order" column in the table?

• I've added some notes (footnote indicated in the column header) to explain why taxonomic order is included. Does that help?

• Yes, it helps a lot; I now understand why that column was included. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• It would be nice if the IUCN status sorted by most to least threatened instead of alphabetically. That way, it matches the order shown in the key.
• EBA column does not sort s098 and s099 correctly; it seems to consider them as blank cells, as they are scattered throughout the blank cells instead of being sorted separately.

That's all I've got. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RunningTiger123. I just spent an interesting half hour learning all about sorting columns; I didn't know such things were possible! I think I've addressed all of your concerns.

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment "The following list is" is outdated wording. This could be a note for the first column or simply reworded into something like: "The International Ornithologists' Union provides a taxonomic order for the 56 endemic birds of Borneo based on x". That would work too. Mattximus (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Mattximus I thought that was only for the lede! I've modified this to put it as a note for the Taxonomic Order column. Can you please have another look at tell me if this suffices? MeegsC (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "montane birds could move lower" - is there a wikilink that could cover what a "montane bird" is (because I have no idea, personally)? I've changed this to "so montane birds (those generally restricted to the slopes of mountains) could move lower"... Does that work? " The vulnerable grey imperial pigeon" - is there a way to break up this sea of blue? At first glance I thought "vulnerable" was part of the species name I've changed this to "The grey imperial pigeon, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers to be a vulnerable species, is found on a dozen or so of the islands" Does that make it clearer? "Hill dipterocarp forest" - link to explain this (seemingly) rather technical term? I've linked dipterocarp. Is that enough? Or does it need further explanation? These trees are a hugely important part of the Bornean plant community. "particularly bamboo grovesLowland" - seems to be some punctuation and spacing missing here Actually the "Lowland" bit got pasted in by mistake with a reference. Thanks for catching it! Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC) ChrisTheDude, thanks for the review! Do these fixes address your concerns? MeegsC (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, I was asked by another reviewer to add information about the threats Bornean endemics face, and then to break the (now too large) former lede into several text sections. Do the changes I've made still meet with your approval? MeegsC (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, still looks OK to me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

The article looks in good shape. I'm struck by how few photographs there are - even for some species that are of Least Concern and presumably relatively common.

• Why are 5 secondary EBAs described in detail in the EBA section of the article when only one (s098) is mentioned in the table?

  Secondary EBAs include those which contain a single endemic species, or species whose ranges are not entirely restricted to that area. Three of the five secondary EBAs found in Borneo fall into the latter category. The species found on those islands are also found on several Philippine islands, so aren't endemic to Borneo. But those EBAs qualify as "belonging" to Borneo. I did realise that I forgot to mark s099 for the black-browed babbler though, so thanks for that!

• Links are needed for Borneo peat swamp forests and Kerangas forest. I notice that in the article peatswamp is written as one word but the use of two separate words appears to be more common. Wiki also has an article peat swamp forests.

  Linked those two and changed the spelling of peatswamp (though both the field guides used as refs use a single word there!).

• The threats to these endemic forest species and the loss of habitat should be mentioned in the article. Some of the lowlands are being deforested - I notice that there is a wiki article Deforestation in Borneo. Are the montane species less threatened? Are some of the larger species also hunted for food? These articles may be useful:
  • Curran, L.M.; Trigg, S.N.; McDonald, A.K.; Astiani, D.; Hardiono, Y.M.; Siregar, P.; Caniago, I.; Kasischke, E. (2004). "Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo". Science. 303 (5660): 1000–1003. doi:10.1126/science.1091714. PMID 14963327.
  • Helms, J.A.; Woerner, C.R.; Fawzi, N.I.; MacDonald, A.; Juliansyah; Pohnan, E.; Webb, K. (2018). "Rapid response of bird communities to small-scale reforestation in Indonesian Borneo". Tropical Conservation Science. 11: 1940082918769460. doi:10.1177/1940082918769460.
  • Phillips, Victor D. (1998). "Peatswamp ecology and sustainable development in Borneo". Biodiversity & Conservation. 7 (5): 651–671. doi:10.1023/A:1008808519096.

- Aa77zz (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

AA77zz, I've added a bit about deforestation and palm oil plantations—by far the biggest threats to Borneo's endemics—and linked to the Deforestation in Borneo article. Hunting isn't a major problem. Trapping for the caged-bird trade is definitely a problem for some of Borneo's birds, but not its endemics. Can you take a look and see if I've fixed everything you pointed out? MeegsC (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The additions looks good. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• The first 4 paragraphs of the article form a wall of text that is too long and detailed to act as a lead to the article. (a lead is specified in the Featured list criteria). I suggest you add a short lead and then break up the existing text with headers. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Aa77zz, I've created a shorter lede and broken the former lede into a couple of text sections. Does this meet with your approval? MeegsC (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Support - Nicely done. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Billboard Top Holiday Albums number ones of the 2010s

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a list of works that reached number one on the US Top Holiday Albums chart in the 2010s decade. I have noticed that there are several other Billboard-related featured list candidates, and I am hoping to bring this one along too. I am the primary contributor to the list and it could become my sixth featured list if given support. I welcome all suggestions and feedback. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC).

Comments

• It might seem obvious but it might be worth stating in the lead that the chart is specifically for Christmas-themed albums, in case anyone thinks it's simply for the biggest-selling albums during the Christmas period (which could be any album)
• "Other musicians, like Blake Shelton,.....,amongst others" - any particular reason for singling out these seven? I'd be tempted to scrap this sentence entirely and replace it with a brief comment on how many of these albums were actually the biggest-selling album in the country at the time and therefore also topped the Billboard 200. I know the Susan Boyle album did, but I don't think many of the others did. You could also mention some/all of the albums which also topped genre charts e.g. the Duck Dynasty one (somehow) also topped the country albums chart.........
• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude – thank you for posting some comments so quickly. I have made edits to the list based upon your suggestions above. Let me know how it looks now, and thanks again. Carbrera (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC).

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude – thank you for the support. Would you mind commenting on the notability issue? Carbrera (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC).

• Although the topic is not notable at all, this should be presented more like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, with only a new line when a different album reaches number one. There is zero need to have 9 or 10 lines for one album. Just indicate the number of weeks on the right in another column. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – I revised the table. It is not exactly like the list you suggested, partly due to the difficulty I had in attempting to convey that many albums reappear on the holiday charts every year (specifically Christmas by Michael Bublé and the first 2 Pentatonix releases), but I tried my best in making them similar. What do you think of it, now? Carbrera (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC).

Comments from HĐ

• The lead is kind of fragmented. Why are some albums given specific sales figures, and why some aren't? Is it necessary to mention some artists' popularity/relevance during the holiday season (I could get it for Mariah Carey somewhat)? Some data are backed up by Billboard chart history of certain artists, which I am quite concerned whether it is a case of OR (i.e. returned to the top spot in 2016 after previously reaching it in 1998; I'd include a release year instead). I understand that as this is a decade-focused list, the lead may be particularly challenging to be engaging. I hope some of my comments help (and ping me when you've revised the lead). For the table, I concur with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars as above. HĐ (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

HĐ – What do you think of the lead and table now? Carbrera (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC).

I have some remaining comments--

• best-selling Christmas and holiday albums Isn't "Christmas album" and "holiday album" synonymous?
• I still think Phil Robertson's homophobic remarks unnecessary.
• Forbes is not entirely reliable per WP:RSP.
• Center-aligning the ref. column would be great.
• Other than that I am happy to support this FLC. I believe my comments are trivial and feasible. HĐ (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

HĐ – I settled on just "holiday albums", removed Robertson's remarks, and center-aligned the Ref. column. I can still remove Forbes if you feel it is unreliable, but I only kept it because the author of the article appears to have written for several other publications that were deemed reliable at RSP. (see [13]). Carbrera (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC).

I am still not confident in this author's credentials. He claimed himself to be a "freelance writer". At RSP for Forbes it says that it discourages "contributors" and only considers staff writers as reliable. This author is sorted as a "contributor". But I'll leave it up to the source reviewer--HĐ (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I disagree with the edits made at Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's suggestion. It is now unclear when albums return to the charts after leaving the top spot. For instance, Lady Antebellum's A Merry Little Christmas entered the top spot on October 30, 2010, for two weeks, but the next album listed is from November 20, 2010, which is three weeks later. It takes a lot of undue digging to realize that The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection snuck in there for a week. As I see it, there are two options: return to the original formatting (which I personally see no issue with), or restate an album every time it reappears in the chart. In the latter case, the number of weeks would refer to the number of consecutive weeks it was at number one during that run. So, for example, 2010 would have 2 weeks for My Christmas, 1 week for The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection, 2 weeks for Celtic Thunder: Christmas, 2 weeks for A Merry Little Christmas, and then 1 more week for The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection.

Other comments:

• Remove bold text in lead (MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD).
• Do not use column headers in the middle of the table to separate by year; this causes accessibility issues and sorting issues.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I do see your point in how the chart is seasonal that an album returning to number one in December 2010 then again in December 2011. I prefer this layout, however, and List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s provides a way of showing returning number ones in a way you suggest. There's still a major concern about notability of the chart itself and this list, failing criteria 3c (it must meet all of the requirements for stand-alone lists, including WP:NLIST). None of the non-Billboard sources listed mention this chart and List of Billboard Holiday 100 number-one songs was deleted at AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – I do not share your same concern. If it is a matter of finding sources that refer to the chart, I have come across many in my research and can incorporate more into the article if necessary. The Forbes source I recently added to the list is one of them. Personally, I don't believe the other holiday chart is relevant to this discussion. The Top Holiday Albums chart has been around for decades, whereas the Holiday 100 has existed for less than 10 years according to the linked discussion. Carbrera (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC).

I also share the same concern with RunningTiger123. The List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s contains the same accessibility issue that was mentioned above, whereas the original layout I used does not. Switching to the format style on the UK list would require that each album be numbered in the table, which I don't know if I find very necessary. Carbrera (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC).

I think that the example provided by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars works well. It's possible to simply exclude the "No." column while repeating entries that charted at separate times. As to criterion #3c... Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is right in that the only non-Billboard source that actually mentions the Top Holiday Albums charts (at least that I could find) is the Forbes article, and that's tangential at best. However, since Billboard is established as a major record chart producer, I don't know that we have to find standalone sources for this specific chart. It's like the numerous pages in Category:Primetime Emmy Awards; many don't have third-party sources to back them up, but since the Emmys are the most prestigious award in American television, it isn't necessary to establish notability for each individual category. They're notable because they're Emmys and the Emmys in general are notable; maybe the same applies to Billboard charts. If he doesn't mind, I'd like to ping @ChrisTheDude on this, since he's worked a lot on country charts and probably has a better understanding of chart notability. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the chart's appearance, I can agree to that. I will begin making edits to the list. Thanks for your suggestions so far. Carbrera (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC).

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, RunningTiger123 – Apologies for not pinging sooner but I recently changed the table's appearance. Thoughts? Carbrera (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC).

Yes, that looks a lot better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Support (assuming that any issues with criteria #3c are resolved) – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note: the table in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption), which can be inside of an {{sronly}} template if it would duplicate the section header. I've gone ahead and added it myself, but keep it in mind for future FLC nominations. Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [14].

---

Lana Del Rey discography

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This list is about the discography of Lana Del Rey, known by her admirers as one of the greatest living American songwriters, and by her detractors as one of the causes of Generation Z's glorification of depression. Whichever she is, you could listen to her music and have your own judgement. I have removed OR, unsourced, and unreleased songs from this list, and for now, I think it meets the FL criteria for being comprehensive and well sourced.

While I acknowledge I am having another FLC for MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year, since the FLC has gotten two supports, I feel like nominating this for FLC would not be against the advice. Any comment is very much appreciated. Thank you, HĐ (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Outside of my normal grumbling about the use of streaming services as a source, the sourcing is impeccable --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• "....and her debut studio album, Lana Del Ray (2010), under the name Lana Del Ray.[3] Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after.[4] In 2011, Del Rey self-released her debut single, "Video Games", under her current stage name Lana Del Rey" - it would be more succinct to simply say "and her debut studio album, Lana Del Ray (2010), under the name Lana Del Ray, a stage name she has retained ever since.[3] Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after.[4] In 2011, Del Rey self-released her debut single, "Video Games"."
  • Ignore the above, I hadn't noticed the ever-so-slightly different spelling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree it is hard to notice firsthand. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• "The single was certified multi-platinum platinum" - spot the stray word :-)
  • Removed. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• ""Lust for Life" (featuring The Weeknd)" - wikilink The Weeknd
  • Linked. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Del Rey released her sixth studio album, Norman Fucking Rockwell!, in 2019. Norman Fucking Rockwell! peaked atop" - is there a way to not repeat the album title twice in such quick succession?
  • Changed to "the album". HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Will look at the tables later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing to add on the tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your comments. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Please add ALT text for the infobox image.

• Done, HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to combine the last two sentences of the first paragraph? Something like As of August 2019, her albums have sold 3.2 million copies in the U.S. and her single sales in the U.K. have reached 5.2. million? I am recommending this as a way to avoid the repetition of the 2019 part, and that way you can clarify the U.K. single sales were also as of August 2019.

• Revised, HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• This part, Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after, seems incomplete to me. I know what the sentence means, but I am not certain if it is grammatically correct to end a sentence with the word "after", particularly in this manner.

• Reworded, but I'm not very confident with the new wording... HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would mention Violet Bent Backwards over the Grass in the lead.

• Added. Good catch. HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• On a similar note, should anything related to Chemtrails over the Country Club be mentioned in the lead?

• I think it is better to wait till the official release, cue WP:CRYSTALBALL, HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the list. I find your first comment to be interesting. I used to love Lana Del Rey (and she is still a huge influence on me), but for me at least, I became more critical of her after some questionable behavior, like that mask nonsense and not the "Generation Z's glorification of depression". But that's just me. I hope these comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My assessment of her as a "glorification of depression" is somewhat subjective and limited to her early releases only (I mean, look at the title of Born to Die... which was very provocative to me). I remember people around me describing her as "emo queen" or "sad pop queen" lol. But after 2015's "Lust for Life", I guess critics have appreciated her artistry more. I particularly enjoy her Ultraviolence songs and some songs off her newest album. Her mask thing was, however, quite a total turn-off for me at least (but I guess I'd have to "separate the artist and the art" if I want to listen to her music lol). Thank you very much for your comments. I have addressed them accordingly. Hope you have a great week ahead also! HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the prompt responses. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support, @Aoba47:. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate a lot if you could comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year/archive1. It's a rather short list so I believe it wouldn't take up a lot of time :P HĐ (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I will look through the FLC later this week if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support – I made a few edits to the list regarding captions and updating a few reference access-dates. Outside of that, I believe this FLC satisfies the featured list criteria. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Thank you for your support. HĐ (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

(Ref numbers as of this version; not all comments are necessarily about sources.)

• "Lana Del Ray has been pulled from music stores." – Raises more questions than it answers. Mention why as briefly as possible, or drop.

• Added. HĐ (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Why is Zobbel.de reliable—what are its authors credentials and what's its editorial process? Same questions for Charts in France and Aficia.

• I believe Zobble.de, as explained at WP:BADCHARTS, is licensed by the Official Charts Company-licensed Hit Music magazine. I am finding information on Charts in France and Aficia. HĐ (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Update. I am not very certain, but I think "Charts in France" monitors radio plays/internet hits, a-la-All-Access [15]. Cannot find much about Aficia, but from my experience with Taylor Swift articles, it was used to promote certain songs to radio by record labels [16]. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Recorded Music NZ can be linked in ref #86; Dazed can be linked in ref #72.

• Linked. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• What's the rule for whether the chart is linked in Footnotes? If it's to link on first occurrence only then I think a link to Billboard Hot 100 is missing.

• I link the charts on first instance. Added the link to the Hot 100. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• "WW" is not immediately obvious, so WW would be good on the first mention. Maybe also FRA as that's not a universal abbreviation of the country name (unlike UK and US).

• Added. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• The figures 1,174,000 and 1,608,000 are to four significant figures, which I think is likely false precision. Even the three significant figures numbers given the date of one of the sources in particular might be too much. I would prefer two significant figures (e.g. 1,170,000 and 1,600,000).

• Done. HĐ (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Spotchecks: 14, 23, 27, 43, 63, 75, 78, 82, 107, 109, 116, 117, 119, 122. #23 doesn't seem to cite the singles "As lead artist" table—I can change the search to "Song" to get some of them but not e.g. "Video Games" and "Summertime Sadness". (I can eventually navigate to e.g. [17] and [18] but can this links be given directly?). I don't think ref #107 takes me to where it should (https://www.irma.ie/#chartTab1 isn't "Irish Charts Week Ending 6 Sep 2019 Top 100"). Ref #109 says it's from 2012 but it doesn't say the song comes from Born to Die, does it?

• Fixed the Swiss chart link. I also replaced all Irish chart with the Hung Medien-powered site. I hope everything is okay now.

Looking very good overall. Couldn't find a wrong figure anywhere. — Bilorv (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the source review. HĐ (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy with the responses to all of the above. Fixed one typo here and I'm happy to support on sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Found it a smooth read and I think it satisfies WP:FLCR.--NØ 13:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS

File:Lana Del Rey at KROQ Weenie Roast 2017 (cropped).jpg is A-OK to use It's worth specifying in the lead how "Video Games" topped the German charts Done. HĐ (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC) No mention of "Born to Die" and "Summertime Sadness" reaching the top 10 in Australia? Both made that range, as did "Young and Beautiful" (which also had similar success in Italy). They actually made the top 10 in Austria (I know, the spelling), but I wouldn't want to make the lead longer than it is now. Certifications is a good indicator of how successful a single was. If you insist on including chart positions, then I'll remove certifications to make room for that. HĐ (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Maybe you could add how "West Coast" and "Brooklyn Baby" made the top 20 within Switzerland. Ditto. HĐ (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC) I'm surprised that the "non-album single" and "non-album promotional single" listings don't have the {{n/a}} code under "album" field. Not saying it's a firm rule, but those tend to be used in discography pages when something isn't part of an album from what I've seen. Take a look at Rihanna singles discography for an example of what I mean. I don't see how that is necessary. I think it could potentially disrupt accessibility, as the bg-color to n/a is somewhat similar to rowheader. HĐ (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Perhaps we should change other pages instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Only component charts are listed for the singles where she's credited as a featured artist? That's a first from what I've come across. If any have entered the main charts for nations, then I'd use those instead as they're what actually represent overall popularity within a country and take precedence. Those songs had limited chart appearance, so component charts are somewhat there to fill in the gap. Would you recommend removing them altogether though? HĐ (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Not in this case when it would look too empty without those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Unless the listings from "Guest appearances" charted and/or had single/promo single releases, I don't see a point in listing them here, and they'd be better for List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey. Agreed. Removed. HĐ (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC) You should be set after addressing these. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I have responded above. Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Best, HĐ (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I now support the nomination. Just replace certifications with some chart peaks and it'll be good. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [19].

---

List of Mario role-playing games

Nominator(s): Panini^🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Mario franchise capitalized on the success of the role-playing video game genre in the 1990s, releasing Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and Paper Mario. Both series received critical acclaim, so why not keep going? Paper Mario proceeded to receive two more releases, with a new series, Mario & Luigi, being started for Nintendo's handheld consoles. However, these two series met a decline in the 2010s; Paper Mario started evolving to the action-adventure genre, and everybody hated it; the recent Mario & Luigi games saw less positive reception, and the developers, AlphaDream, went bankrupt in 2019.

Despite this, I'm still attempting to promote this list to FL; I recently had a peer review and further guidance from Alexandra IDV. Panini^🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments from Gerald Waldo Luis

I am supporting this! Not many problems, as I can see. No duplicate links, which is always an awesome thing. I do have some comments though; I think I missed these on the PR.

• "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though newer installments in the series, since Sticker Star, also incorporate action-adventure elements." Errr. Maybe change it to "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though installments in the series since Sticker Star also incorporate action-adventure elements."
• "...but changes to gameplay has received mixed reception between games, such as in combat and use of gimmicks." --> "...but changes to gameplay, such as in combat and use of gimmicks, has received mixed reception."

GeraldWL 09:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Both have been fixed. Thanks for your support! Panini^🥪 16:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts from Guerillero

• At 1.6 k, the leade is a bit short. Can you flesh it out some more.
• I'm not a fan of how much information is thrust into each cell.
  • Release years by system should be its own sortable column
  • Title should be sortable as well
• Visually, this looks like a bear for screen readers. Is {{Video game titles}} WP:ACESS compliant?
• "iQue Ltd" is not the page title
• You sometimes translate and sometimes don't translate article titles into English
• I don't see any quality problems with the sourcing

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is not my nomination, but responding to the points about the formatting and accessibility (not the content)-- this is the standard format for this type of list, which the FLC delegate PresN brought up in his "How to Write Featured Lists of Video Games" as accessibility-compliant. PresN, can you give input on this?--Alexandra^IDV 19:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I did write that guide almost 6 years ago, but yeah. To the best of my knowledge, this template format is ACCESS-compliant (feel free to double-check with them though!); it's just a wikitable behind the scenes, with col/row-scopes. I know the template format isn't every editor's favorite, but I've personally used it in... looks like 10 FLs? Latest was promoted in April 2019? And there are several by other people as well who've used it. Sortability is not a requirement for FL tables where it doesn't give benefit to the reader, and in lists like this it's not at all needed: each table is a video game subseries, presented in the order they were created (and not too long). There's no benefit to the reader to give the option to sort by alphabetical title instead of production order, any more than there would be in a table of television show episodes. --PresN 04:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(All ref numbers as of this permalink. Also some comments not specifically about sources.) How can I know that this list is exhaustive—is there some source that lists them all? I notice Template:Mario role-playing games includes Puzzle & Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros. Edition but this list doesn't. "Immediately received negative reception following its announcement" – I'm not happy with an article written so soon after the trailer being the only basis for the claim here (I know there's more at Paper Mario: Color Splash). At least add another reference or two, but I might change it to "Despite negative fan reaction prior to release, the game received mostly positive critical reception" or otherwise rewrite the point to explain what specifically about the pre-release fan reaction was unprecedented (they petitioned for it to be cancelled?). Rewritten and added another source. "Believed to have taken inspiration from Paper Mario" – Believed by whom? This would need attribution at the least (e.g. "Some critics found...") but I don't think the sources are good enough. #59 is a fan-made walkthrough, it looks like, so not reliable (see WP:UGC). #60 doesn't say that, so far as I can see. And then we've got "The battle engine is very, very similar to Paper Mario" in #61, which is not the same thing. I simply removed this claim altogether, and I plan to remove similar claims like it. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door is missing an NA release date. Added, don't know how I missed that. If the Mario and Luigi logo is public domain (not original enough) then surely Paper Mario is too? I think it's plausible both are PD but it could be neither—maybe somebody else can speak to which is the case. If you look real close, the Paper Mario logo has a paper texture which I believe is enough to make it complex. Who knows? Ref #6: Cubed3 and RPGamer look like fan blogs or amateur review sites at first glance. Is that right? In the Cubed3 case you might be better citing Famitsu directly, but I'm not actually sure how either Famitsu or RPGamer support the claim that critics found later games gimmicky. Removed the claim altogether. Sometimes we benefit by forgetting. Ref #3 needs the second work (GameSpy) to be named. Same with ref #79 (GameSpot). Lots of small reference formatting inconsistencies—take a look from top to bottom. Examples include Metacritic (inconsistent in whether to use italics; I think it shouldn't); GameSpot.com occurring rather than GameSpot; and works/publishers being inconsistently linked/unlinked (do either on every occurrence or the first occurrence only). Not clear what the difference is between things like nintendo.co.jp vs Joystiq. More often than not I think the things not in italics should be. Spotchecks: refs 2, 13, 28, 51, 54, 65, 66, 74, 86, 89. #28 doesn't say The Origami King's JP release date. Can't see that #51 says [Color Splash was] First Paper Mario game in high definition. #54 doesn't mention coronavirus delaying the game. A nice read, but still some tidying up to do. — Bilorv (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Added Famitsu source. Changed the source. Removed the claim.

Bilorv, I believe I fixed these concerns. Do you spot any other formatting inconsistencies that I didn't? Additionally, although I've considered adding Puzzle & Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros. Edition but it's more of a compilation game with more rather than a unique game. I believe it's part of the navbox because it is still an RPG will Mario elements in it. Nintendo did not develop the game, they only blended their property. Panini^🥪 13:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll double check now if the rest of the fixes are good but there's still the first point left to reply to. — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Explained myself above. Panini^🥪 12:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to see how Puzzle & Dragons Z doesn't fit the scope of the list as established by the first sentence: The Mario franchise, which originated as platform games, has inspired a variety of role-playing video games (RPGs) released on multiple Nintendo video game consoles. Nintendo console, has RPG elements and features Mario, right? Two more things: I didn't mean that you have to link every work always, just works which have articles (I see that this was ambiguous), so Nintendo World Report, RPGFan, Square Enix Music Online and Video Game Music Database can be unlinked, or kept as redlinks if you think they're notable; and I'm not seeing that "First Paper Mario game in high definition" is verified by the new source either. Rest of the changes look good. — Bilorv (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, Added it in, fixed the changes, left Nintendo World Report linked as it has a chance of being notable. 13:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright great, happy to support now that these have been fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "which originated as platform games," this just doesn't seem right to me, perhaps "originated as a series of platform games" or "had its origins in platform games"?

• Changed.

• You abbreviate RPG and then don't use it.

• Removed.

• Is there a decent link for "crossover"?

  Linked.

• "Most games in the series ..." the links really only reflect a handful of those in the entire list so saying "most" here is a stretch with the current referencing.

  Changed.

• "two characters that have grown a cult following." unreferenced.

• Looks like somebody added that in when I wasn't looking. Removed.

• "a two disk soundtrack" hyphenate two-disk.

• Done.

• Check that all online refs have access dates (to be consistent) e.g. 22, 23, 55.

  Should be done.

• "after licensing rights were revealed" is "revealed" correct here? Do you mean "arranged" or "organised" or something?

• I don't think so, Nintendo later showed the public when the lawsuit began that the rights exist.

• "for the GBA" what's that?

• Fixed.

• Ref 14, 16, both have spaced hyphens, should be spaced en-dashes.

  Fixed.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I have addressed your concerns. Panini^🥪 01:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, probably missed my last ping so just checking to make sure. Panini^🥪 13:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "The two primary sub-series, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi, follows" => "The two primary sub-series, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi, follow" (subject is plural)

  Fixed

• "the first game being Paper Mario and was released for the Nintendo 64 in 2000" => "the first game being Paper Mario which was released for the Nintendo 64 in 2000"

  Changed

• "The Paper Mario series is developed......The Mario & Luigi series was developed" - any reason for the difference in tense?

  Yes, actually; the Paper Mario series is healthy and still kicking, while the Mario & Luigi series was developed by AlphaDream which went bankrupt in 2019.

  That makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The series has generally received critical acclaim,[6] being praised for their writing" - singular/plural disagreement

  Fixed

• Notes like "Developed by Square." are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops (looks like this applies to almost all the notes, in fact)
• Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude, that should take care of it. Panini^🥪 13:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 23:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [20].

---

List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominating a list after a while. I have worked on this important list and I feel it meets the criteria. Constructive feedbacks are welcome. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• I am a bit confused by some of the entries - almost all are for categories recognising the best film, and yet you list the nominee as a person?? As an example, I checked the source for 1989, and it just lists the winner of Best Foreign Language Film as "Salaam Bombay! (India)" - Mira Nair is not mentioned at all. Similarly the source for 2007 lists the winner of the same category as "Water (Canada)" - no mention of Deepa Mehta. On what grounds have you determined that those individuals were the nominees.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Fixed now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That's actually made it more confusing. You now have simply Howard's End listed, but that film was a US-UK-Japan co-production, so how does that make it an Indian nominee? In the case of the Best Picture Oscar, the award goes to the producers of the film (the source in this article confirms this), so your listing of Ismail Merchant as a nominee was in fact correct. So for categories where the producer wins it is OK to list the producer, but for best foreign film I think you should just name the film as that is what wins (this means you will need to find a source that confirms that Water was officially a Canada-India co-production, as the oscars.org source just lists Canada)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Done. Howard's End is produced by an Indian and since it was nominated for best picture, the producer should be mentioned. I have removed Water from the list per Shahid's comment as it was indeed nominated from Canada. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Shahid

• My first concern was going to be exactly the one raised by Chris, about the films that won the Best Foreign Film award (the director usually accepts the award but the official winner seems to be the country). Now that you've changed the winners, I'm not sure Water should be there because it represented Canada.

Hope its resolved now.

• In the case of Howards End, the producer's name should be there because it is the producer who wins the award.

Done

• It could be just me but I honestly think the name of the article should be changed because it's ambiguous: "List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees" - this wording makes it sound as though there is some sort of "Indian Academy Award", namely the award is Indian and not the winners and nominees. I think it should be "List of Indian winners and nominees of the Academy Awards".

The name is consistent with other similar lists like List of Canadian Academy Award winners and nominees and List of Pakistani Academy Award winners and nominees.

Still doesn't justify this ambiguous wording in my opinion (the pages you're citing are not recognised as featured content). What do you personally think about it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't think the name needs to be changed. There isn't any Indian Academy award, but there is one for television. Still, I would want ChrisTheDude to have a say on this. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• "have received or have been nominated" - the second "have" seems redundant to me.

Fixed.

• "11 Indians have been nominated for a total of 14 Oscars, six of whom have won seven Oscars." - is it your own calculation or there might be some source supporting it? Just wondering, no big deal if there isn't.

Tweaked. It's my own calculation per the entries. Since every entry is sourced in the list, I didn't source the sentence.

• I do not understand the "Scientific and Technical Awards" section - what's that? What were they nominated for?

@Shshshsh: - see Academy Scientific and Technical Award -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well then in this case it should be linked or be presented with introductory sentence. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have mentioned it in the lead. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Shshshsh Please have a look. I have hopefully resolved your queries. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher, I'm leaning support but just unsure about the name of the article. I wonder what others like Chris and yourself think about it, regardless of what other similar articles are named. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• As a song title, Jai Ho should be in quote marks
• "Several Indian Americans have received the Oscars in the technical category like Vanitha Rangaraju" - Ranagraju is not an Indian American according to her article - she was born in India and did not move to the US till she was 26 years old.
• You need to work in a link somewhere to Academy Scientific and Technical Award and also specify which award they won (there is more than one category)
• Film titles which start with A, An or The should sort based on the next word
• Can't see any reason for the note to be squashed into the left hand side of the page, it looks a bit silly IMO
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

All done except the forth one. I'm having some issue with the sorting. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

One more comment

• You have Vanitha Rangaraju listed in the "scientific and technical awards" section but you give the award as Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, which is not a technical award. The Oscar in that category is presented to the film's producer (in this case Aron Warner), not jointly to every single person who worked on it. I can't find any evidence that Vanitha Rangaraju was awarded an Oscar, and the source against her entry doesn't support it, it just says that the film won an Oscar and she was one of many people who worked on it. That's not the same thing at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Fully agree. I have removed the entry. Thanks for your comments. Can you please also address the 3rd query of Shshshsh? Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude and Shshshsh. Waiting for your response. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I can see the point that the wording is ambiguous/confusing. Changing it might be best -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Done now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think so too. I do not condition my support upon it. I support the nomination but strongly recommend the name change and I see that Chris is of the same opinion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro

• Tables have scope cols but not scope rows per MOS:ACCESS; add these to the recipient
• Tables also need headings
• Note cols don't need to be sortable
• Per WP:Sorting, individuals need to be sorted by their last names not their first, and films that start with "A, An, The, etc." need to be sorted by the next word (i.e. Creation of Woman not The Creation of Woman)
• Can we archive ref 1, 25, and 29?

Rest looks good for me. – zmbro _(talk) 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Zmbro: The nominator is busy at the moment, so I addressed your comments except for the archiving of the sources as they work well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good to me now. Good for you taking over! – zmbro _(talk) 23:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GagaNutella

"Jai Ho." -> "Jai Ho". Done Add the film's year in the first caption. Done Refs aren't aligned to the center. Hope they are fixed now There are issues with the sorting on the recipients and film column in the competitive awards section. Please read comment #4 of Zmbro Wikilink DreamWorks Animation. Done Try to wikilink Shotover K1 Camera System, I have no ideia what's this. There isn't any wiki article on this. It's some sort of an aerial camera. Ref 1: wikilink CNN-News18 and it isn't in italic. Ref 3: wikilink The Times of India. Ref 5: wikilink The Hindu. Ref 6: wikilink BBC. Ref 7: wikilink Daily News and Analysis. Ref 9: wikilink Outlook. Ref 10: wikilink The Economic Times. Ref 25: wikilink Variety. Ref 29: wikilink Hindustan Times. GagaNutellatalk 03:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC) All done. GagaNutella please have a look. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, I made some fixes. Congratulations for the great work, you have my support. GagaNutella^talk 23:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed (though the above reviews basically did one in aggregate); promoting. --PresN 23:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [21].

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1953

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

With 63 of these lists already at WP:FL, here's the next in the series. This particular year was dominated by Hank Williams, whose lifestyle finally caught up with him in the early hours of January 1. Ironically, he had just released a single called "I'll Never Get Out of This World Alive"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Great work as always. HĐ (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I can't find any faults --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

Formatting

• Consistent all around, page numbers, retrieval dates, linking etc.

Reliability

• No issues here.

Verifiability

• checked 29, 36, 48 & 3 — all good
• Another solid list, great work Chris. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support I have just one question, shouldn't The Davis Sisters sorts with Sisters instead of Davis? Congratulations, great work, this list is very cohesive! GagaNutella^talk 01:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No, definitely not. Names of individual people sort based on surname, and names of groups sort based on the first word (disregarding "A" or "The") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 23:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [22].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Brooklyn Nine-Nine

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL-criteria. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Julie Anne Robinson sorts first alphabetically for some reason The list is sorted by last name, and Julie Anne comes up first as a result. But her name is not Julie (forename) Anne Robinson (two-part surname) - it's Julie Anne (two-part forename) Robinson (surname) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: The issue has been fixed. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 13:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Similarly, Luke Del Tredici erroneously sorts last  Fixed, his name is now sorting by "Del Tredici" instead of just "Tredici". Think that's it from me - nice work! I had never heard of this show before but might have to check it out........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Done. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 19:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - as an aside, writing the words "Anne Robinson" definitely brought back some mildly traumatising memories of when I was on The Weakest Link :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "The series has also received particular praise for its portrayal of serious issues whilst retaining a sense of humor." – That is a bit too far of a jump from the table alone; it needs a citation or should be removed.
• While not every award has its own page, the ones that do not can be wikilinked to a relevant article about the presenting organization or a section in that article (for instance, Motion Picture Sound Editors#Golden Reel Awards for MPSE Golden Reel Awards).
• Years for NAACP Image Awards can be wikilinked to specific ceremonies.
• Year and categories for TCA Awards can be wikilinked.
• Replace hyphens (-) with en dashes (–) for Gracie Award categories.
• For consistency with other categories at the same awards ceremony, change "Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series" to "Best Actor, Comedy" for the 2016 Poppy Awards.
• From a quick scroll through IMDb, 2020 Gracie Awards can be added (relevant source).
• Also from IMDb, I noticed the Imagen Awards are missing – I've seen those in similar lists, so consider adding them here if sources can be found.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: All of your suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! I changed one of the years for the Imagen Awards from 2018 to 2019 (I'm assuming it was a typo), but other than that, it's all top-notch work. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment

• Don't use NYPD without first explaining it.

 Fixed

• "critics for its cast" presumably you mean "for the performances of its cast"?

 Fixed

• You single out Samberg and Braugher but then go straight into series accolades without noting anything they individually won.

Some of their awards are already mentioned in the second paragraph.

I understand, but you have "It has won two Creative Arts Emmy Awards ..." awkwardly in between. Move it so the individuals are mention and then some of their awards. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I managed to fix it, so all done with these edits.

• "its portrayal" is repeated too quickly.

 Fixed

• Ref 19 has a spaced hyphen, should en-dash.

 Fixed

That's about it for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• The list is very cohesive and the sources are all right. I just miss a reference at the beginning of the first paragraph to support the defining sentence of the series and also in the second paragraph about it being "acclaimed by critics", you should add a Metacritic reference for example. But you already have my Support. GagaNutella^talk 03:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS

No licensing concerns with File:Andre Braugher 2011 (cropped).jpg Avoid using the word "talented" when it's inherently subjective, and contrary to what the use of "but" within "immature but talented" implies, being immature doesn't mean one tends to lack capabilities It's worth mentioning in the lead how Norman Howell has won two of his Emmy nominations Maybe add details on things that Stephanie Beatriz won/got nominated for when she seems to have the most nominations aside from Andy Samberg and Andre Braugher After some tweaks, it should be ready for FL promotion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: All done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You now have my support, and the media review passes too. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 23:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [23].

---

Harry Styles discography

Nominator(s): Ashleyyoursmile! 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating Harry Styles discography for featured list because it is sourced, well-organised, and easy to navigate through. I have spent quite some time in expanding and cleaning up the article, which I now believe meets the featured list criteria. This is my first featured list nomination and also my first time working on a discography. For reference, I've used both Meghan Trainor discography and Bruno Mars discography. I look forward to the comments. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

;Drive-by comment Is there any way to avoid having sources that require the reader to search databases manually? For example, source 24 (for BPI album certifications) requires the user to search the database using the information provided, but using that database, I found a source here for Harry Styles that doesn't require this search, and the other singles and albums have similar links. I know this means each album/single would need its own citation instead of having a single overarching citation, but it would make it easier to show WP:V and would allow those specific links to be archived (search engines don't work in archives). RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Hello RunningTiger123, thank you for the comments. I agree that having separate sources can assist the readers in verifying the information for each album/single separately, however I'd like to ask if this is really needed? I find this similar to the chart history of each artist, where all albums/singles that have charted are listed together with the respective peak positions. Here also, if the name of the artist is searched in the "BPI awards" box, the server shows the list of all albums/singles with the corresponding certification status and date. Other FL articles that I consulted with have used the same format, like Meghan Trainor's, or Taylor Swift's. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I understand what you're saying. The reason I mentioned this is because search pages really can't be archived, so if something happens to those links (even something as simple as the website restructuring their database), it may be difficult to verify the information – at the very least, the citations would have to be updated. Also, since the citations are linked to each individual album, I don't think it's necessary to provide the full history as the citation. Maybe those search links could be moved to the "External links" section in that case. But I also understand that the existing format is used in other FLs, so if you want to keep it that way, I don't have any problems with that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC) RunningTiger123, I hope you don't mind but I'd prefer to keep it this way since it adheres to the format that other FLs employ. Please let me know if there's anything else that I could do. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Other than that, the only things I noticed are that a few sources weren't archived for some reason and that the information in column "Studio album details" (release date, label, format) isn't cited like it is in other FLs. All other formatting, sources, etc. look really good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC) RunningTiger123, and done. Everything is sourced. :) Also, double-checked all archives, its working fine for me. Please let me know if you would like me to do anything else. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC) The archives seem to be working, but there are some pages that don't have archives. I know a few probably won't work (for instance, source 31), but some (like source 33) have archives. Did you run IABot? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC) RunningTiger123, the links you are referring to won't be archived because they have been used in the "cite certification" format. Please refer to Meghan Trainor discography which uses the same format of referencing. All sources, other than the ones which have been used in the article in this format, have been archived. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Oops, my mistake – I assumed it was a cite web template and not cite certification. In that case, I don't have anything else. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Support – top-notch work, especially for a first FL and first discography. Nice job! RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "he left its management and signed a recording contract" - I would omit the bit about the management, it's pretty trivial
• "both of which became top-ten hits on several single charts" => "both of which became top-ten hits on several singles charts"
• "Styles became the first British male artist to have two first albums" - "two first albums"? Not sure what this means

• I changed it to "first two albums". Does it read alright now? Ashleyyoursmile! 18:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• It should have been his first two albums. I have fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• You're right. My bad. Thank you for the fix. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Notes which are sentence fragments should not have a full stop. This applies to A, B, C, D.
• That's all I got on a first pass - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hello ChrisTheDude, thank you for the comments. I've implemented all the changes. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from MaranoFan

• Support - I have read it a few times and determined that it meets the criteria.--NØ 02:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support, MaranoFan! Ashleyyoursmile! 05:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from HĐ

• Avoid phrasings like "commercial success"/"moderate success" as it is potentially POV. Mentioning chart positions should be sufficient for readers to understand how successful the single(s) was/were

• I have removed "commercial success" completely, and rephrased the "moderate success" part. I don't think chart positions for these two singles deserve to be mentioned. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• "quintuple platinum" → "five times platinum" is easier to understand

• changed. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Otherwise the list is ready for FL. Great work! HĐ (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments, HĐ. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Mostly a source review but some other comments too.) I might say "As a solo artist, the English singer Harry Styles has released..." rather than "English singer Harry Styles has released..." because some will be mostly/only familiar with him as a 1D member—it's just a tiny bit more clear. rephrased. Rolling Stone says the hiatus was announced in August 2015 but the article One Direction seems to think it only occurred in 2016. Find a source saying "the hiatus began on/in __" or something as explicit as possible. changed the source, which mentions the hiatus year as 2016. Might be nice to mention the awards Styles has received for the discography, exactly like Harry Styles does: Throughout his career, Styles has earned several accolades, including a Brit Award, an American Music Award, two ARIA Music Awards, and a Billboard Music Award. (And in this context we'd need inline citations too.) Not done. This article is for his discography that has nothing to do with him winning accolades that has been already covered under a separate article :List of awards and nominations received by Harry Styles Well, this strikes me as a strange claim given that the accolades (at least the serious well-known ones) were given largely for his discography. It seems to me that they are more than related enough to mention. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Not obvious what "WW" means on first sight so using WW (for instance) would be a help. changed. I have to agree with RunningTiger123 that it would be better for linkrot reasons to cite fixed URLs directly rather than give search instructions, except where the website doesn't have a dedicated way to link to something specific. "Passed FL" doesn't mean "100% perfect" (lots of human error at every stage of the process and standards change over time) so I'm not convinced by the precedent cited. This affects 8 references as far as I can see. all BPI certifications use the "cite certification" template, I don't see anything wrong with it. Official Charts Company is linked in two references but I think you want just the first link for consistency. done. I think BBC News shouldn't have italics for consistency. done. I know the image is marked as free and used on Wikimedia Commons but I don't know enough about copyright law to say that it's fine—it's by a fan recording a concert, which is of dubious legality (Billboard, Legal Beagle) initially before we even consider whether the fan has the right to release the recording under a CC-BY license. I can see if we can get a more expert opinion or (my preferred choice) we could avert this entirely by using the better-quality well-licensed File:Harry Styles November 2014.jpg instead. changed. Spotchecks on sources 13, 14, 28, 49, 50, 54, 56, 65, 66, 77 (numbering as of Special:Permalink/1006466603). Issues: #13 (Ultratop) works for the singles but for the albums I'd prefer citing [24] and [25] directly, similar to the comment above about search pages as references. For #54 (GLF/Sverigetopplistan), I think when I follow the instructions I'm looking at peak positions rather than a 2x Platinum listing. Even the ref at Sign of the Times (Harry Styles song)#Certifications the ref cited only gives evidence of Gold (rather, "GULD"). And could #65 be archived immediately because it looks like the ref will fail verification as soon as "Watermelon Sugar" falls off the top 40 (and it's currently #38)? Ref. 13 changed for albums, ref. 54 has been changed to the one that cites "Gold", ref. 65 uses cite certification that makes use of a unique id and does not need archiving. Ah, #65 was a misunderstanding on my part (I thought 4994 was the identifier for "Official Top 40 Singles", but it's the specific week). — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

With only one factual inaccuracy (if I'm correct about that one) in the spotchecks and no sources I could identify as unreliable, it's looking very good, but I hope the comments above can make it even better. — Bilorv (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bilorv, thank you for the comments. I've implemented some of them and left comments for the rest. Let me know what you think. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I won't be happy to support with the linkrot issues remaining, though it's not enough to oppose over either. I suppose that puts me at Neutral for the time being and another source review would be needed for this nomination to pass. I'm not assessing things based on FLs promoted in 2012 or whether something is a template or whether a WikiProject considers something okay, but by the featured list criteria as applied to the rendered output of the page (and this touches on stability and verifiability). You may think "of course the BPI website isn't just going to go down" but I've seen enough broken references added to Wikipedia in 2005 by people making similar assumptions to think that it is a possiblility worth taking into account. Thank you for applying the other suggestions I made and for your improvements to the list. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bilorv, so I worked hard and linked all the BPI certifications separately to the respective pages, like you suggested. Just one thing, I haven't been able to archive three ref.s: "Kiwi", "Golden", and "Sweet Creature", the wayback machine is taking a lot of time to archive these manually. Can you please run the bot and fix these, if that's not a problem? Otherwise, I'm going to try tomorrow. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've tried to change the Italian citations too—please make fixes or let me know if any of these have mistakes in them. You can use IABot by clicking "Fix dead links" in the page history (which also runs automatically periodically, see IABot). It fixed two of those but doesn't like "Golden" (nor does Wayback Machine directly), so it's fine to leave this be—maybe next time the bot runs it'll work it out. Not including a paragraph about accolades is personal taste so I'm happy to Support. — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bilorv, thank you very much for the support, and for changing the Italian sources. I've archived the ref. for "Golden" manually and formatted the Italian citations for consistency. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Some of the refs are subscription only, e.g. the NYT, so there's a url-access=subscription parameter for those.

• done.

• " where it was certified platinum" it was certified platinum in all of these or just the US, I can't quite tell what the sentence is saying.

• I meant to say that it was certified platinum in the US. Not sure how to rephrase this, please feel free to reword it accordingly.

• You use US and UK before going onto United States and United Kingdom...

• That's because the name of the chart is "UK Singles Chart", following the same pattern I've mentioned "US" before "Billboard Hot 100"

• "reached moderate peaks" that's relatively meaningless...

• removed.

• EP should be used in the lead after extended play as the EP abbreviation is used in the infobox without explanation.

• added EP in brackets in the lead.

• Ref 24 should use a spaced en-dash, not a spaced hyphen.

• done.

• " Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana." is linked in the refs twice, looks like you're using the "link once, first time" paradigm so check that and others.

• Thanks for noticing, removed the target on latter.

• Although Recorded Music NZ looks like it's linked every time...

• That's because it uses the "cite certification" template. Probably the same reason why "Recording Industry Association of America" or "Music Canada" appears to be linked every time.

• Pick one strategy and go with it.

That's all I have on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hello The Rambling Man, thank you for the comments. I've implemented some of the changes and left a few comments above. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'm not keen on different citation styles within a single article, let alone featured material. I would avoid using bespoke citation templates which cause problems like inconsistent formatting, or else get those templates modified to include parameters which allow you to unlink publishers (for instance) as required. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man, linked on every ref. Let me know if anything else needs to done. Thanks, --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 23:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [26].

---

51st Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2019 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 ceremonies were written. Please keep in mind that because this ceremony happened earlier than in recent ones that I did, the format of how I configured this list resembles more closely to the 1st Academy Awards rather than say the 71st Academy Awards and such. Birdienest81 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• "Academy Honorary Awards"

The text following each of the recipients seems to be quotations. If so it should be within quote marks. (There is a quote mark at the end of the Laurence Olivier text, but not at the beginning.) However, note MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Also the MoS says of quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.

• Fixed: Added quotation marks accordingly.

• "Multiple nominations and awards"

"The following 14 films had multiple nominations"; "The following three films received multiple awards". This would seem to breach MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".

• Fixed: Wrote out fourteen as a word instead of numerals.

That doesn't really address my concerns around MoS compliance. Could you re-read the two extracts from the MoS above - on minimising the use of quiotations and on attributing opinions in line - and either tweak the article to comply or let me know why you think it already complies? (Or should be an exception.)

• @Gog the Mild: The reason why I am using direct quotes is because in a previous FLC for another Oscar ceremony list, one of the reviewers demanded that I included a rationale for why the individual received the specific honor. They said that linking the title of the awards in the header is not compatible with the MOS, and that each individual honorary awardee have different reasons for receiving the award. So I am using the direct quote that was provided by the Academy to justify the rationale of the award.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a brief explanation of why each recipient of an honorary award is there is entirely sensible. Unfortunately, your using quotations to do so breaches two parts of the MoS. So far you haven't explained why not adhering to the MoS is be appropriate in these cases. It would seem to me that the simplest approach would be to paraphrase each quotation into your own words, which would cause the issues to disappear. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Fine, I did paraphrase the explanations for the Honorary Oscars in my own words. It should be close as possible to the original statements.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Lead

"The Beverley Hilton". Why the upper case T. Eg see here.

• Fixed: Removed the "The" from the name.

• "Ceremony"

"Three days earlier ... on April 6" Do we need both of these?

• Fixed: Removed the date.

"Initially the Academy's music branch protested that the segment be dropped from the ceremony, but it was kept intact after" I am not sure that "intact" is needed.

• Fixed: Removed the word "intact."

"It was also remembered". "was" → 'is'.

• Fixed: Changed was to is.

" This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, presenter of the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger as well as the father of the producer, as he died on June 6 of that year." 1. Suggest a comma after "Bolger". 2. Suggest 'being' after "as well as".

• Fixed: Added accordingly.

• "Winners and nominees"

"Academy president Howard W. Koch an actress Susan Blakely." "an" → 'and'.

• Fixed: Changed "an" to "and".

The Beatty/Welles sentence: suggest splitting into two, with the section in parentheses as a separate sentence.

• Fixed: Split the sentence into two.

"Best Supporting Actress winner Maggie Smith became the only person to win an Oscar for playing an Oscar loser" Optional: add in which film.

• Fixed: Mentioned California Suite.

Overall it is in good shape. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Addressed all the comments. Thank you.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Birdienest81, that satisfies me on everything except my first comment on quotations, where I have given a little more information. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicely done. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "Initially the Academy's music branch protested that the segment be dropped from the ceremony," - this doesn't read quite right to me. Maybe "Initially the Academy's music branch protested the segment and urged that it be dropped from the ceremony," Fixed: Replaced original phrase with one you suggested. "This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, presenter of the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger as well as the father of the producer" => "This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, the father of the producer, who presented the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger" Fixed: Replaced original phrase with one you suggested. "president Howard W. Koch an actress Susan Blakely" - an should be and Fixed: Replaced "an" with "and". Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I addressed all the comments above and made all the necessary corrections based on them. Thanks. --Birdienest81 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Quick comment – The list of cites has both a Davis 1996 and Davis 1998, neither of which are in the bibliography. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC) @Giants2008: Done: I've fixed the references by replacing them with different citions. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Comments "as well as being the father of the producer" does not make sense grammatically. All the more recent ones like 88th Academy Awards have the category name within the cell rather than in their own cells. I think this was for accessibility reasons and should be consistent. I think that's all I've got! Reywas92Talk 03:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC) @Reywas92: Done: I addressed your comments according and made the necessary adjustments and corrections based on them. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I also think that sentence about Jack Haley still needs fixing. I suggest "This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, the father of the producer, who presented the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger" as per my comment above.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Downtown Los Angeles may be a more relevant link in the "Ceremony" section.

• Fixed: Wikilinked Downtown LA and removed California to avoid redundancy.

• Is there any way you could restructure the sentence Orson Welles had previously been nominated for writing, directing, and starring in Citizen Kane, but though he also produced it and it was nominated for Best Picture, the studios, rather than the producers, were the official nominees of that category at the time.?

• Fixed': Changed the sentence that reads While Orson Welles had previously achieved the same feat for Citizen Kane, rules at the time determined that the studio releasing the film, as opposed to the individual producers, were the official nominees for Best Picture.

That's all I noticed. ~ HAL333 23:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: I have addressed all the comments and responded with the appropriate fixes.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 14:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Very nice. Reywas92^Talk 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose at the moment.

• "the Beverly Hilton " "the" is part of the name of the hotel.

• Done: Included "The" in the wikilink to the hotel.

• "The Deer Hunter won five awards" needs reiterating we're talking about the main ceremony as the previous sentence was talking about the technical awards.

• Done: Added the phrase "at the main ceremony" in the sentence.

• "late night" should be hyphenated.

• Done: Added hyphen to "late night".

• " the father of the producer" which producer?

• Done: Inserted Jack Haley Jr. in the sentence.

• "February 20, 1979 by" comma after 1979.

• Done: Added comma after 1979, accordingly.

• "became the only person" perhaps "first" as the source is 1993, are we sure it hasn't happened since?

• Okay, I changed the reference source to one from 2013 which happens to be the official AMPAS-supported history of the Oscars. According to the section "Academy Facts and Records" in the book, it still recognizes Maggie Smith as the only acting winner to portray an Oscar loser. I'm pretty sure that record still holds today. I could make a chart on here about the roles each Oscar acting winner portrayed, and probably only three people have won for playing fictional or real life actresses since 2013 (namely Emma Stone for La La Land, but her character Mia is not portrayed to have been nominated for an Oscar in said film). The closest thing to replicating that record is probably Renée Zellweger winning for portraying the titular character in Judy who in real life lost two acting Oscars. However, she did win a special Academy Juvenile Award in 1940. So that probably does not count. Otherwise, Cate Blanchett would have been recognized as the second person to win for portray an Oscar "loser" since she played real life Oscar winner Katharine Hepburn (who lost the Best Actress category eight other times) in the 2004 film The Aviator. For evidence, see this sample from the book 80 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards which was published in 2008. On page 48-49 of the sample, it mentions that Maggie Smith is still recognized as the only person to win an Oscar for playing an Oscar loser.

• Why wouldn't an Oscar-winning producer be notable? E.g. John Peverall?

• Done: Created a stub article for the producer even though reliable sources about the producer is extremely sparse.

• "Music and Lyrics" any good reason Lyrics is capitalised?

• Done: Changed "lyrics" with lowercase "L".

• Some of the references (e.g. ref 25) are geographically limited, so should use the url-access=limited parameter.

• Done: Added said parameter for ref 25. Also added paramater for sources that were retrived via Google News Archive.

• Others require subscription (e.g. WaPo) so that's url-access=subscription required

• Done: Added parameter for Wapo and NY Times sources.

• "Multiple nominations and awards" tables row scopes and captions please.

• Done: PresN did this

• Same for "Presenters and performers" tables, which also require col scopes.

• Done: Also done thanks to PresN

• ISBNs are inconsistently formatted.

• Done: All ISBNs are formated with the 978 prefix and with the same cluster format.

• I don't see any mention in the prose about ratings for the show.

• Done: Added sentence on ratings in the second paragraph in the intro.

That's a very quick blast through. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have addressed all your comments and have made the adjustments.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

TRM makes a lot of valid comments for the sources above that I would be sure implement first.

Formatting

Biblio

• The locations are inconsistent; sometimes you have "State, Country" vs "City, State" vs "State"

• Fixed: Reformated locations for consistency.

• retrieval date missing for ref 14

• Fixed: Added retrieval date for said ref.

References

• you have "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)" vs just "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" either is fine, just needs to be one or the other

• Fixed: Removed AMPAS since it was under publisher parameter.

Reliability

• no doubts here

Verifiability

• Checked a couple and they all seemed to verify the information cited. Aza24 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I have addressed all your comments and have made the necessary corrections.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good; Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 23:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC) [27].

---

Public sculptures by Daniel Chester French

Nominator(s): Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A long time coming list of all of the public sculptures of Daniel Chester French --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 19:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

;Comments his older brother, William M.R. French It isn't especially clear whether this is Daniel's brother or his father's. His brother really isn't relevant. Removed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC) French's education ended and his career began in 1876. This could be made more concise. removed the extra his --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC) The two sentences French was a prolific sculptor, creating public sculptures, sculptures for institutional collections, and medals. From 1871 until his death in 1931, French created 92 public sculptures. are a little choppy. Could you combine them in some way? It might help to note the number of medals and sculptures for institutional collections that he designed. Changed to French was a prolific sculptor, creating 92 public sculptures from 1871 until his death in 1931 due to the other kinds of works not being in this article --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Are any of the unlinked statues notable enough to have their own articles? If so, could you make a few? Maybe one or two more could be notable, but I think this is out of the scope of this review. I wrote The Minute Man and it is now an FA. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Note c is a complete sentence and needs a full stop. Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC) That's all. Nice work! ~ HAL333 22:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 19:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Looks great, just a few minor points......
• The sentence starting "French did not perform well academically" should probably be merged with the the next one
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Same with the sentence starting "French's education ended"
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• And the sentence beginning with "French moved his studio"
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would argue that in the city or neighbourhood column, "16th arrondissement of Paris" should sort under P (maybe being written as "Paris (16th arrondissement)") and The Bronx should sort under B
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• The page has been moved from Public works by Daniel Chester French to Public sculptures by Daniel Chester French --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• @ChrisTheDude and HAL333: I have replied to your concerns --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "with John Quincy Adams Ward" I would say "with the sculptor John Quincy Adams Ward"
  • Done --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "French studied sculpture in Florence, partly out of Thomas Ball's studio, for a year" I do not understand this. He went to Florence for a year? What does "out of Thomas Ball's studio" mean?
  • Thomas Ball had a studio in Florence and French worked out of Ball's studio for part of the year. I broke these apart --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "French's education ended and career began in 1876 when French accepted a contract" The second "French" should be "he".
• "French was commissioned to create his first post-education statue" "first post-education" sounds awkward. Maybe delete?
  • His first public commission was The Minute Man. I deleted --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "statue for a private group, John Harvard" I am not sure what is meant by a "private group" here. The article on the statue says that it was commissioned by an individual for the college.
  • Removed --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "commissions for state, federal, and private groups" None for private individuals?
  • added a clause --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "His final work, the Daniel Webster Memorial, was completed by his daughter Margaret French Cresson." You say this twice.
  • removed --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• The usual rule is that in sortable lists, links such as Forest Hills Cemetery should be repeated each time, not just given on the first usage as sorting will put the items in a different order.
• It would be helpful to have a column for the subjects of the statues, especially as some have no article on the statue itself. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This would be a lot of original research. Most of the entries have an image to serve that purpose --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Please let me know what you think --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I think a recent-ish RfC requires table captions ... in cases like this one, with an sronly template ... AFAICT, this seems to be accepted practice at FLC now, so I added one.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done some trivial copyediting and avoided one redirect in the table; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. Very attractive images!
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• " centuries. French was born" He was born...
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• "he did a" perhaps "he undertook a"?
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• " in Florence for" it might be worth adding that this was in Italy as a large portion of readers might assume this is a Florence somewhere in the US.
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• "for a year. During part of his year in Florence, French worked out" -> "for a year, during part which he worked out"
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• "He would continue to produce statues" -> He continued.. and "produce statues" is a little repetitive.
  • changed to create --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• "would produce " ->"produced" again.
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• "it would remain" -> it remained.
  • Done. Eek. So much passive voice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Note [a] needs a reference.
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Nature abhors a vacuum, put centred em-dash or en-dash in empty "photo" cells.
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• In sortable tables, linked all linked items every time as it's not certain which one will come first once re-ordered (e.g. United States Post Office and Sub-Treasury Building (Boston).
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Glided bronze" you previously linked both parts of "Gilded copper"
  • linked --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Why isn't Dupont Circle linked?
  • There is only one article for both the roundabout and the neighborhood. Unlike most other DC neighborhoods --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Let me know what you think --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool, happy to support now. Really nice work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC) [28].

---

Michael Curtiz filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Michael Curtiz, one of the most prolific film directors during the golden era of motion pictures. Among his many credits are Mystery of the Wax Museum, Captain Blood, The Charge of the Light Brigade, Kid Galahad, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Angels With Dirty Faces, Four Daughters, The Sea Hawk, The Sea Wolf, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Casablanca, Mildred Pierce, Life With Father, The Breaking Point, White Christmas, and King Creole. I did a major overhaul of his filmography and want to make it a featured list. Please help me achieve that if you can. Jimknut (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

The banner at the top saying "This article currently links to a large number of disambiguation pages (or back to itself)." is not a good start - can you address that (or remove the banner if it has already been addressed)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like somebody took care of that already. Someone fixed the disambiguation links last night. The banner has been removed. Jimknut (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• "whose filmography spanned from 1912 to 1961" - I think "whose career spanned from 1912 to 1961" would be better
• "During this period he directed, whole or in part," => "During this period he directed, wholly or in part,"
• There's a gap between the full stop and ref 2
• "The latter film was released in England" - I'd imagine it was released in the United Kingdom, not just England
• "For his contribution to cinema, Michael Curtiz was awarded" - no need to repeat his first name
• Think that's it on the lead, I will look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Revisions made per your suggestions. Jimknut (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 19:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Could you add scope to the title column to make it more readable? It may look nicer if you move the English title to a second column. Could you archive the sources? That's all for now. ~ HAL333 22:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I've added scope to the title columns and moved the English translations of the Hungarian and Austrian titles to a second column, per your suggestions. As for archiving the sources, I've never done that before, so I may need some help. Can it be done in one action or do I have to enter each url into the archive one at a time? Jimknut (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Hi, I just did it for you. There's an automated tool for this, click the history tab on any article, "Fix dead links", "Add archives to all non-dead references", "Analyze", and wait (may take a few minutes depending on amount of refs).--AlexandraIDV 10:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you so much. What else do I need to do to improve this article? Jimknut (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 19:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

;Initial comments on tables "In 1912, Kertész enter Hungary's motion picture industry" => "In 1912, Kertész entered Hungary's motion picture industry" "in an effect to better training as a film director" - just say "to train as a film director" Also, you don't need to keep repeating his whole name. Just use the surname. First World War should have capitals "By 1919, a communist government was established" - by 1919 or in 1919? "where made for the Sascha-Film Company" => "were made for the Sascha-Film Company" "creenplay by Ladislaus Vajda" - typo on first word "to come to the United States and directed films" => "to come to the United States and direct films" "Curtiz directed some addition scenes" => "Curtiz directed some additional scenes" Got as far as 1954, will endeavour to look at the rest tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC) I have made the changes you suggested. Thanks for the help. Jimknut (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC) More comments "The Final Years" - none of these words are proper nouns so they should not have capitals. This also applies to the section immediately previous, but I forgot to mention that earlier :-) "1954, Curtiz left Warner Bros. and spend the remaining years" => "In 1954, Curtiz left Warner Bros. and spent the remaining years" "Curtiz learned that was suffering from incurable cancer." => "Curtiz learned that he was suffering from incurable cancer." "received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, and Supporting Actress." => "received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, or Best Supporting Actress." (current wording suggests the films were all nominated for all six awards) Something has gone wrong with the column headings on the National Film Registry table And the one below it :-) Note h doesn't need a full stop as it isn't a complete sentence Same with notes l, m, n, o, r, w, y, z Think that's it. Great work overall. Reading this list makes me realise that I have actually never seen Casablanca all the way through, I really must rectify that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC) All corrections made per your suggestions. Thanks again for the help, and by all means see Casablanca. Jimknut (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Could you have another look at the sentence above the Oscars table? It still says "received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, or Supporting Actress." as it did before, which as currently worded would mean that every film listed was nominated for all three of Best Picture, Best Director and one of the acting awards. My suggested wording above fixes this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Okay, I took care of this. Jimknut (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments a nice piece of work, some bits and pieces:

• Several duplinks in the lead, e.g. sound film, two-color Technicolor, James Cagney, film noir and Vistavision.
  • Fixed
• " worked in CinemaScope.[2] He worked in" mildly repetitive.
  • Fixed
• Isn't the plural of "film noir" actually "films noir"?
  • No, "film noirs" is correct
    • Well Collins disagrees, Oxford says films noirs... Logically, film noirs is the only one that's incorrect. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
      • You may notice that I now have it in a direct quotation from Alan K. Rode's biography; so we can do one of three things: 1) change it to "films noir" and make it a misquote, 2) leave it as it is and add "[sic]" afterwards, or 3) just leave it as is; by the way, Merian-Webster dictionary states that "film noirs" and "films noir" are both correct. Jimknut (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I guess if this is ok in USEng (!) and in the quote, I'll drop it. The humanity!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Hungary's Royal Academy of Theatre and Art" looks notable, do we have a hu-wiki article we can {{ill}} to?
  • I imagine it is - or was - a notable academy; however, I can't find a proper link to it
• " drama, Maés Holnap ("Today and Tomorrow", 1912).[6] " maybe "1912 drama Maés Holnap ("Today and Tomorrow")"
  • Changed
• "the part-talking " forgive me, what is "part-talking"? Does it mean that the film has long sections of action without speaking?
  • I added a link
• "which brought stardom to John Garfield." is that referenced?
  • It is now
• "magnum opus" I would expect to see in italics.
  • Now in italics
• consider linking star vehicle.
  • Linked
• "As of 2020, four films..." that reference is dated to 2018 so it's safer to say "As of 2018".
  • Changed to 2018
• Ensure linked items are linked each time in sortable tables, e.g. I see "sketch film" isn't linked every time.
  • Changed
• "Projectograph Production;..." why are all of these "productions" with a capital P?
  • Because that is how I learned to spell things; when a proper name precedes a generic word both are capitalized; i.e "He lives on a street" / "He lives on Market Street"; "It is a film production" / "It is a Warner Bros. Production"
• " Lucy Dorraine; " one r in her surname.
  • Corrected
• "Lily Damita" our article calls her Lili.
  • Corrected
• María Corda has a diacritic on her i.
  • Corrected
• Under a Texas Moon is unnecessarily piped.
  • Corrected
• Not the right Norman Foster, appearing in a film three years before his birth.
  • Corrected
• "Academy Award Nominations" why is Nomination capitalised?
  • Corrected
• Mildly confusing to have the separate table for all Oscar noms and then cherry pick six categories to list in the subsequent section...
  • Someone else added an extra section; I have deleted it
• Where is the reference for the first "all-in" Oscars table?
  • List deleted
• All tables should have row and col scopes, and captions implemented.
  • Corrected
• "Angels With Dirty Faces" small w for with.
  • Corrected
• Likewise for "Life with Father".
  • Corrected
• Ref 9: pp. 8 should be p. 8
  • Corrected
• Ref 10: p. 59, 64 should be pp. 59, 64... suggest you check all single/multiple page references are formatted correctly.
  • Corrected; and I didn't see any others that were incorrect
• Ref 45: p. 26-27 should be en-dash (and pp.)
  • Corrected
• "The Dawn of Technicolor: 1915-1935" should be en-dash in year range.
  • Corrected

That's all I have on a first run. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the help, Rambling Man! Jimknut (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, again! Jimknut (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC) [29].

---

List of presidents of the National Rifle Association

Nominator(s): –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it barely missed out on becoming a featured list after I nominated it last year. Sadly, real life obligations got in the way of that for me.
Additionally, Sdkb somewhat recently contributed some improvements that would have addressed some of the concerns raised in the last discussion.
Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

;Drive-by comment I will have a proper look later, but a couple of things in paragraph 2 jump out at me: "Throughout its history, presidents have served purposes and effects ranging from providing the NRA greater legitimacy to provoking outrage and condemnation" - as written this implies that the purpose of the president at times has been wholly or partially to provoke outrage and condemnation. This seems highly unlikely to me. Also, I can kinda see the point of mentioning Heston's comment about taking away his gun, but is the fact that Porter happened to once say something controversial about Barack Obama relevant to this article? If Aaron Boone said something controversial about Joe Biden (I have no idea if this is likely as I have no idea of his political views, I was just making up an example), I wouldn't expect it to be added to the lead of List of New York Yankees managers, because it's not relevant........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: That came up last time, the statement has been watered down rather heavily going from: The choice for president has been used at various times to provide the organization greater legitimacy[6][7] to aid in maintaining the political status quo. To: Throughout its history, Presidents have served purposes ranging from providing the NRA greater legitimacy[6][7] to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation. To now: Throughout its history, presidents have served purposes and effects ranging from providing the NRA greater legitimacy[7][8] to provoking outrage and condemnation. I am rather happy with the statement as it currently stands since I added the phrase "and effects" in there to remove some doubt that the NRA president intentionally was chosen to provoke outrage. Would you still suggest a rephrasing? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) I'd break it into two parts: "Throughout its history, the role of the president has served purposes ranging from providing the NRA greater legitimacy to [something]; holders of the office have at times intentionally provoked outrage and condemnation"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC) I'm going to have a good think on that. Someone last time objected to the article saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that the NRA intentionally provoked outrage with its choice of president. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC) I think ChrisTheDude is on to something here. Role/purpose of the organization president could include things like providing legitimacy, focusing on legislative or lobbying strength, increasing fundraising, increasing organizational visibility, or attacking perceived political opponents of the organization. Intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation are other things they do that might be related to those things, and some examples of intentional provocation actions could be cited as a separate sentence more readily. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC) I would have to agree with Chris as well. ~ HAL333 04:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Comment. Okay, since no one has commented to object, I have updated the passage per the rough consensus here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Couple of other comments on the lead and the images

• "as of 2019, NRA presidents are chosen by the board of directors" - as we are nearly into 2021, this could do with updating
• "Those who have held the position include former United States president Ulysses S. Grant, Harlon Carter, American Football League commissioner Joe Foss, and David Keene." - seems odd to list the profession/main claim to fame of two people but not the other two, especially since the "other two" are (to me at least) the least famous of the four, so some context as to who they are/were would be useful.......
• The photo caption "Retired Marine officer "Red Mike" Edson (2006)" implies that the picture was taken in 2006, but that clearly can't have been the case as by that year Edson had been dead for over 50 years. So why is that year there.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Fixed the year, and added descriptive titles to other people in the liss. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Another comment; if there is a good source on it, it would probably be WP:DUE to mention changes in the type or behavior of presidents following the Revolt at Cincinnati. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I probably could find more info regarding how the role of the EVP has changed since the Cincinnati Revolt than the president. That's mostly because the focus of the Revolt was on how the Executive Vice President was selected (by rank-and-file vs the board of directors) and who held it (a partisan or the old guard). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are NRA presidents now chosen by the board of directors?
  • No clue because no source has explained that.
• There's nothing wrong with it, but I am curious as to why some presidents required four sources while others only needed one.
  • If I had several really solid sources for a given entry, I decided my preference would be to include all of them. However, sometimes it became necessary because not every source has all information on each person.
• Since the group is based in the US, shouldn't the dates be in American English?
  • Sighs, yeah... fixed.
• Are none of the other NRA presidents notable enough to have their own article?
  • It is not my place to say. Though, I will say that Kayne Robinson now has a proper target.
• Why's Washington Adjutant General redlinked?
  • I've changed [[Washington Adjutant General]] to [[Washington (state)|Washington]] [[adjutant general]]
• Note b doesn't need a period.
  • But can it have one anyways?

That's all that I noticed. ~ HAL333 04:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: Responded. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333, IHateAccounts, and ChrisTheDude: Anything new to add? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about this FLC. At a quick glance, the statement about James W Porter II slagging off Obama is still there with no context or explanation as to why it's relevant - can you address that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: In 2013, it was a much bigger story than you might think.[30][31] (also mentioned: [32][33][34]) That it was included in the Atlantic article several years later as an example of controversial statements from NRA presidents holds a particular amount of weight with me that I think it is pretty WP:DUE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, but you need to give some context within the article to why the quote was relevant to his position as NRA President and not just a random comment he made because he happened to dislike Obama. The ABC News source expands the quote to say that he also said "His entire administration is anti-gun" - adding that to the article will make it clear why the statement is relevant to this list. As it stands, there's no real context as to why the quote is pertinent to this article. Porter's personal views on Obama in and of themselves aren't relevant to this article, but his personal views on Obama in relation to the latter's views on gun control potentially are. Does that make sense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

An easy work around would be mentioning Obama's NRA rating in a parenthetical phrase. ~ HAL333 03:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude and HAL333: Better? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's okay. ~ HAL333 20:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

More comments

• There are a few sea of blue issues in the table.
  • Removed duplicate links
• Could you add scope to the name column?
  • Done?
• I would avoid sources directly produced by the NRA.
  • Out of 109 references, only six are from NRA-owned publications. They are only used in conjunction with another source (generally this one).
    • I would still remove them - it's a primary source. ~ HAL333 19:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• To keep it in line with the others, make the Burnside caption a phrase rather than a sentence.
  • Fixed

That's all. ~ HAL333 05:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:HAL333: Responded. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Could you also clearly explain the vice presidents? ~ HAL333 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  @HAL333: Which one? The executive vice president or first/second/third vice presidents? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. I have no idea and nor will the reader. Are they also figureheads? Are they selected the same way? For the same purpose? Etc. It may be better just not to mention them, but I don't know. ~ HAL333 19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  @HAL333: They are selected the same way; they are figure-heads, and they are just there to be future presidents. I have reliable sources for the first thing, but not the other claims. Regardless, I don't think it would be that confusing given that many organizations have multiple vice presidents (first vice president, second vice president, executive vice president, etc.) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: "There have been 65 NRA presidents, serving 67 distinct terms." - I feel like this might be improved noting the two who have served multiple/separated terms? IHateAccounts (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose I am sorry, but until my concerns are addressed, I will not be able to support this FLC. ~ HAL333 03:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC) MJL I've looked this article over again - if you can fix the primary reference issue, I'll be able to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 04:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: I appreciate that! I'll take a look tonight to see if I can fix that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: I hate to have to say this, but I don't think the list would be able to remain comprehensive without the NRA-published references. I removed two of them, but I ran into a few issues. Ref #111 has no comparable independent alternative, and the other uses back up statements that would only otherwise be supported by a single offline source. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I tried finding some sources myself, but no luck. ~ HAL333 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I halfheartedly supported last year, but with the changes above I don't see a reason to oppose --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see alt text with each image.

  Added

• "Post-war photograph..." which war?

  Added

• I think, in general, the image captions could note when the individuals were president of the NRA.

  That feels a little superfluous.. Maybe I could add which number they were instead?

• On my screen, the images squash the references into three columns, so I would either remove one, or use the {{clear}} template.

  Where should I be placing {{clear}}?

• References which need a subscription, like the NYT, need url-access=subscription added to the citation template.

  Got most, I think

• References which are PDFs need format=pdf added to the citation template.

  Updated

• "two Union veterans " I would just pipe "Union" here, not "two Union veterans" in totality because that's a bit Easter egg.

  Fixed

• Ahh, then you link Union to Union (American Civil War). why would Union be linked differently?

  Fixed

• "would become" -> "became"

  Fixed

• " have served purposes and effects" this is a bit odd, what are you really saying?

  They were meant to do a lot of things.

• I would link Obama.

  Linked

• When you say they serve out two one-year terms, e.g. is that how they do "2015–2017", "2013–2015 " etc? I.e. each "Term" shown in the table is actually two "sub-terms"? I'm mildly confused, especially when you say "67 distinct terms " when it looks like a lot of those were made up of "two one-year terms"... You see my confusion?

  You pretty much got it. This is a bit of a confusing thing with the historiography of the NRA. Almost every reliable source I could find says the tradition is that the president serves two one-year terms, and from I can tell that is mostly true. You just have two different people severing additional nonconsecutive terms after their first two were over. Maybe this makes it clearer?

• Don't use "hash" (#) to represent number, per MOS:HASH.

  Huh, fixed.

• In a sortable table, linkable items should be linked every time as it's not guaranteed that post-sort the linked item will come first.

  Re-linked

• "May 16, 1925 along " comma after year.

  Fixed

• "Irvine C. Porter" is redlinked, but none of the presidents without articles are red-linked. Are they really non-notable? Wouldn't the president of the NRA pass WP:GNG? If so, they should be linked.

  I was told that I had a sea of red before. I would be happy to change this back to having links.

That's all I have on a quick pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• If they pass GNG then they should be linked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: responded. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC) [35].

---

List of international goals scored by Manon Melis

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Having nominated the list of goals scored by Vivianne Miedema, all-time goal scorer for the Dutch football team, it seemed fair to work on the list of her predecessor, Manon Melis. I have applied all the comments reviewers kindly provided in the Miedema nonimation to this Melis list article. I believe it is ready. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "She helped the Dutch qualify for their first major finals ever" - lose the unnecessary word "ever"
• "Her last goal, her 59th, she scored in" => "She scored her last goal, her 59th, in"
• " in and against Albania in 2013" - simpler and more elegant to just say "away to Albania"
• "Serbia and Switzerland are the teams against whom" => "Serbia and Switzerland are the teams against which"
• "Her most productive year was 2011. She ended that year with 10 goals from 12 games." - can you merge these two very short sentences together?
• "Four of her goals came from penalties." - placed where this is, there's the slight possibility of confusion as people may think it means four of her goals in 2011 were pens. Can this be reworded or moved somewhere else?
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for taking the time to review. I think I have address all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 21:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Could you center the refs? What is the source for the "Goals by competition" table? That's all. ~ HAL333 16:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing. It took a while but I managed to centre the refs, and I learned something new about tables, so thank you. The source for that by competition table is me counting the entries in the main table. I assume that is allowed, as the competitions themselves are verifiable in each source. Or am I mistaken? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 21:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Nice work Edwininlondon. A few comments for improving readability:

1. "Hers was the only Dutch goal in a 4–1 defeat." Consider changing to "She scored the only Dutch goal in the 4–1 loss." or "Hers was the only Dutch goal in the 4–1 loss."
2. "She also scored a hat-trick in a FIFA World Cup qualifier match away to Albania in 2013." Consider editing to something like "In September 2013, she scored a hat-trick against Albania during 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification."
3. "Melis played her only matches at a FIFA World Cup finals in 2015, in Canada." I read this as she played in the Final, but the Netherlands was not in the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Final... Being that this article is about her international goals scored, it seems the following sentences are not needed in the lead: "Melis played her only matches at a FIFA World Cup finals in 2015, in Canada. In her four games she did not score; the Dutch were defeated by finalists Japan in the round of 16."
4. Should the sentences starting with "Serbia and Switzerland are the teams against which she has scored the most" be in a new paragraph?
5. The alt tags on the images could be more specific to include "Photo of Dutch international footballer Manon Melis...." instead of "woman". See the Elizabeth II example at WP:MOSALT.

Hmlarson (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review. I believe I have addressed all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Link cap to Cap (sport)
• "even longer goal draught" > drought?
• Link Denmark and Switzerland.

A few very minor points, but that's about it. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review, Kosack. I believe I have addressed the minor points you raised. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed (and thanks for adding trans-titles!); promoting. --PresN 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC) [36].

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1952

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

With 62 of these lists now at WP:FL, here's my next nomination, covering the year 1952. In this year, one of the most famous answer songs in country history became the first million-seller in the genre for a female artist and Hank Williams ended the year at number one; he would die in the back seat of his car just hours later. As ever, any comments will be responded to in as timely a manner as I can manage. Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 17:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments I'm not sure the comma is need before "but" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Change Despite this level of success, it did not top the jockeys chart, as the content of the song was deemed controversial and it was not played by some radio stations. to Despite this success, it did not top the jockeys chart, as the content of the song was deemed controversial and was not played by some radio stations. Changed, but in a slightly different way, hope that's OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Is it necessary to have "On the Bayou" in parantheses in the lede? Why not? It's part of the song's title...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Remove "each" from the sentence beginning In contrast, the three other singers Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC) would still be charting --> would still chart Changed, but in a slightly different way, hope that's OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC) That's everything. Great work as usual. ~ HAL333 00:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support ~ HAL333 17:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Support – I made a few changes to the grammar, but other than that, it all looks really good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• AFAICT, table captions are accepted practice at FLC now, because of the recent-ish RfC, so I added one. Let me know if that's wrong.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done some trivial copyediting and avoided some redirects in the table; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Just struck me it might be applicable to link juke box as several "younger" members of our audience may not even know what that is...
• Carl Smith (musician) is piped to a redirect.
• Ref 6 needs a spaced en-dash.
• Ref 6 also has a publication year of 2003.
• "best sellers charts" as this isn't the name and now the description, shouldn't it be "best-sellers charts"?
• "McDonald's version of..." that sentence uses "song" three times and reads repetitively for me.
• "achieved in ... and he achieved ..." repetitive again.
• In see also, I think "1952 in music" is a stretch too general, 1952 in country music seems the appropriate level.
• Ref 43, it's more pp. 96, 100 than the range isn't it?

That's all I have. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - all addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC) [37].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I've worked on a couple of featured lists of this sort, most recently List of awards and nominations received by Community (co-nomination). This one was more work than I expected—lots of notable awards that we didn't mention, some non-notable that we did, and a lot of challenges in some of the earlier awards where having a website was not quite universal yet. Our coverage of Page has received a lot of scrutiny post-their December 2020 announcement that they are transgender. Hopefully this FLC will be as calm and constructive as the others I've participated in. Comments about whether and how to address Page's deadname and previous gender identity are welcome, but may not be acted on immediately if it might be better to wait and get a fuller consensus. (There's been a tiny bit of talk page discussion about this so far.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

• Would suggest slightly more elaborate alt text for the picture - "2015 photograph of Elliot Page" for example

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• The wording of the table heading "Nominated work" feels slightly off since two of the items are Page himself. I don't write awards lists myself, so I don't know what the standard is, but the current solution does not look right to me.

  Replaced with a dash as suggested by ChrisTheDude. — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Since this is a list of awards and nominations, and not a filmography, try to ensure that roles you bring up in the lead are related to that - ie He served as a voice actor in the video game Beyond: Two Souls in 2013. is irrelevant on its own, without mentioning that he was nominated for his voice performance in it.

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good otherwise - please {{ping}} me when you have addressed the above or if you have any questions, and I will be with you asap!--Alexandra^IDV 02:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • For info, the recently-promoted List of awards and nominations received by Joaquin Phoenix uses a dash in the "nominated work" column where the actor was nominated as a person (for want of a better term) rather than for a specific work...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Think these are all addressed Alexandra IDV—thanks for the comments! — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you, I have confirmed the edits and made one more change (a MTV -> an MTV).--Alexandra^IDV 05:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support--Alexandra^IDV 05:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Endorse the above and add......
• In the "nominated work" column, Page's name should sort under P, not E

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• The result column sorts as Won > Runner-up > Nominated > 10th Place. I would suggest that 10th place should sort before nominated, as it is a result of some sort.

   Done Now sorts as "Won > Runner-up > 10th Place > Nominated" on a single click (rather than two). — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers Awards isn't linked - if it's not notable enough to have an article, does it belong here? Not sure what the general view on that is......

  When I looked at this I decided that it is notable, but just doesn't have an article yet. It seems like a similar organization to many of those listed, with a similar awards process. I can redlink it if you like? — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that you have replaced his name with a dash, but the dash oddly seems to sort under P. I would suggest it should just sort at either the top or bottom...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure, sorts at the top now. I made two conflicting changes at once with that one... — Bilorv (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Overall, this is a really good list. Just a few small things I noticed:

• I think the "Shared with..." footnotes would fit better in the category column (like footnotes g and h). This would help to distinguish these footnotes from the "Tied with..." footnote.

  You're right, this is better. — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Scrolling through IMDb, the only potentially notable awards I didn't see included were from film critics' associations, but I'm not worried about including all of those – I'll assume the major ones are here.

  Yeah I did check these and think all the major ones (and only the major ones) for which sources exist are there. — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Change Atlantic Film Festival to Atlantic Film Festival Awards and Primetime Emmy Award to Primetime Emmy Awards for consistency in first column.

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is this the article for source 2? If so, link it for easier verifiability. (Also, I think the title for that source is too long and accidentally includes the subheader.)
  • Same for this for source 36.
    • Yep, found them through ProQuest at The Wikipedia Library (good way to find sources that are otherwise paywalled) but these are the same sources—now linked. — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• 45th Saturn Awards (2019) can be wikilinked.

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

All addressed. Very useful feedback! — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason footnote g moved to the nominated work column? I thought it was fine where it was at, and now it conflicts with footnote h. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This was a just mistake—now fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Support – One more quick thought: Since "Premio Maguey" is Spanish for "Maguey Award", I think we should write "Premios Maguey" for consistency with pluralization. My mistake for not catching this earlier. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I am a Spanish GENIUS! I'll have to take your word for it on the Spanish being correct but brilliant catch, done. — Bilorv (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Some Dude From North Carolina

• Use the Cite rt template for the reference citing Rotten Tomatoes.
• Link the British Academy of Film and Television Arts in the reference titled "BAFTA: Games in 2014"
• The reference containing the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences should not be in italics, per consistency with other citations.

That's about it from me, as all the other references look great. Ping me when you have added comments. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: good eye for detail, all fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support on sourcing. Thanks for quickly addressing my suggestions! Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Impeccable list. Lead flows well. Information is thoroughly sourced. Comprehensive and informative. A small question (which does not impact my support in any way)--the Women Film Critics Circle sources are published on WordPress, which are flagged as unreliable. Does this mean the award is of marginal notability etc. ? HĐ (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  The source is fine as a self-published expert source if we accept that the award is important. Women Film Critics Circle does have an article and its members are all professionals and its awards are hence determined by experts so I think that gives it similar credence to many others on the list. WordPress is obviously not a great sign but bear in mind that those pages are from 2006 and 2009 so many big organizations didn't have websites that look great to a 2021 eye. — Bilorv (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• If "National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers Awards" isn't notable enough to have an article then I'm not sure it should be included in this list.
  • I was under the impression that it was notable (but didn't yet have an article) but I've just found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAVGTR Awards. Surprised by the outcome but that's what happened, so I've removed the award. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• "received numerous ... receiving nominations ..." repetitive.
• "a children's television" perhaps clarify here that it's a Canadian series.
• "the superhero works" not convinced this sentence is grammatically up to scratch, perhaps an "and" in front of this would work...
  • Agreed. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Refs 32 and 33 have a spaced hyphen instead of an en-dash.
• Ref 51 v ref 53 - "Spike" format is inconsistent.
• Ref 26, publisher and/or work/website?
  • publisher=Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all fixed I think! — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There was already a source review, and after consideration I've decided not to hold up the nomination for it, but please add page numbers to your magazine/newspaper citations. Promoting. --PresN 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC) [38].

---

List of awards and nominations received by BoJack Horseman

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that the article is well-written, comprehensive, and has everything needed for a list-article to pass the FL-criteria. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Are the non-linked nominees not notable enough to have their own article (or be redlinked)? For GQ hailed the show as one of the best of the decade, and IndieWire ranked BoJack Horseman as the greatest animated TV show of all time, you could move ref 13 after the comma. Is there any chance you could expand the lede? That's all for now. ~ HAL333 16:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: Redlinks have been added, ref 13 has been moved, and the lead has been expanded. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: Second ping in case you didn't see the first one. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

• The picture of Schaal lacks alt text
• Is there any reason why IndieWire is not italicized?
• Link depression and addiction the first time they are mentioned (and not on later mentions)
• Looks good otherwise - ping me when you have responded to the above.--Alexandra^IDV 12:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Alexandra IDV: I have added alt text to the main image and fixed the links of depression and addiction in the lead. However, IndieWire is a publisher, and as a result, shouldn't be italicized. Other than that, all your other suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the edits and the clarification, I have confirmed that everything has been resolved.--Alexandra^IDV 13:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support--Alexandra^IDV 13:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "an American adult animated tragicomedy sitcom" is a bit of a sea of blue. Any way to break this up?
• Actually I think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: I tried adding a hyphen to "adult animated" and moving "sitcom" to the next sentence to address the issue. If you would like it a different way, feel free to ping/message me back. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Some Dude From North Carolina: that works except that you should not have a hyphen in "adult-animated". "Adult-animated" would indicate "animated by adults" rather than "animation aimed at adults". Presumably it is indeed animated by adults but I don't believe that's what you mean :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Issue has been fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments: The sourcing and formatting for this list are good – my only comments there are that the BTVA Awards are not really notable and there is an NAACP Image Award that could be added. However, I'm concerned about the list's length. ~40 items isn't very long, and it could probably fit into the Bojack Horseman article without issue. Indeed, looking back at that page's history, it seems that the list was already there in mostly the same condition (just sorted by year instead of award) until you created this page, and I can't find any discussion from you or other users on the talk page about splitting the awards section into its own article. There's no set cutoff for a standalone awards list, but past discussion has indicated that anywhere from ~30 to ~50-60 awards should be the minimum required for a standalone list. I think we should try to clear this up and establish what that lower boundary should be, and then we can figure out if this should be its own page. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Per your suggestions, the Behind The Voice Actors Awards have been removed and the NAACP Image Award nomination has been added. About the status of this list in general, I just want to point out that per your own reasoning that "anywhere from ~30 to ~50-60 awards should be the minimum required for a standalone list", this list already has a reason to stay without any discussion. Additionally, a short list, such as the one for awards received by Carnivàle, can reach FL-status, so length isn't an issue. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify my point: I was trying to say that some people thought the cutoff should be set around ~30 awards and some thought it should be around ~50-60. This list clears the former but not the latter, which is why I wanted to try to settle this. As to the Carnivàle list, that's really not the gold standard for FLs; it either needs a major overhaul or to be delisted. (As a side note, the reviewers even let the infobox contradict the lead; one says 10 wins/33 noms and the other says 9/21. FL nominations were certainly different back then.) At any rate, I don't think it's the standard we should look to set a precedent for today's FL nominations. In short, I am still concerned by length and think it could possibly go back into the Bojack Horseman article. I would really like to get others' opinions on this, though. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

I just watched the first episode of this, and it was.... fine. After all my comments got resolved, I'll support this.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 14:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

* "...the series tells the story of an anthropomorphic horse named BoJack Horseman (voiced by Will Arnett), the washed-up star of a 1990s sitcom who plans his return to celebrity relevance with an autobiography to be written by ghostwriter Diane Nguyen (Alison Brie)." Suggest "...the series tells the story of the eponymous anthropomorphic horse (voiced by Will Arnett), who is a washed-up star of a 1990s sitcom who plans his return to celebrity relevance with an autobiography to be written by ghostwriter Diane Nguyen (Alison Brie)."  Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? In the notes, I suggest separating the citations. So for bullet 1, for example, "Season 1 holds a 69% approval rating based on 26 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes[1] and a score of 59 based on 13 reviews on Metacritic.[2]" It's much cleaner and more appropriate IMO.  Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? Add publishers to the references.  Doing... Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?  Done Publishers have been added. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? The author parameter in all citations that has them have the full name in the "last" parameter, when the last and first name should be divided.  Not done per WP:CITEVAR, the "author" parameter is already in use. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? Merge all columns that state the same thing. For example, if three consecutive rows state "BoJack", then just merge all.  Not done per consistency with other FL-articles such as the lists for Better Call Saul awards and for awards earned by Community. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? Regarding the redlinks, are they valid? Redlinks are only for actually-notable subjects. I added them per comments left above by HAL333, and as they're all "actually-notable", and could become articles someday. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? GeraldWL 10:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I have added comments to your suggestions. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice job making the publisher thing in no time (if I were you I'd procrastinate four months). I now support this. I would suggest a portal bar, but that doesn't affect FLCs; feel free to do it or not. But personally I love putting portal bars. GeraldWL 14:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Love the idea! Portals have been added. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

Noice! See ya in another nomination 30 years later, when I will nominate List of accolades received by Interstellar an FLC. GeraldWL 15:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I think since you've mentioned that BoJack is an anthromorphic horse, it's worth noting the other characters' species too as to a non-expert they might just assume all the other characters are human. Or horses.
• "of Sarah Lynn" there's no context or description for this character, just a name.
• "Kristen Schaal's portrayal of Sarah Lynn ..." is a complete sentence, needs a full stop.

That's it. Good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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