Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2024
- 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, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [9].
- Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This list is nomination #10 for me in the series and, hopefully, will end up being #30 in the series to be promoted. Only two more nominations after this one and the 32-team series of first-round draft picks will be complete! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk)
Pseud 14
[edit]- Don Meredith, a quarterback out of SMU - Perhaps expand the name of the college in full and then bracket it.
- That's all I could find. Great work as ever! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Image review: Passed
- Images have alt text
- Images are appropriately licensed. AGF on self-published images.
- Images used are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you for the review and helpful feedback @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support - I got nothing. Brilliant work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]Footnotes:
- Second use of "sixth-" in Footnote R is missing a hyphen.
- Footnote X ends with a double period ("Jr.."), I think only one is necessary but couldn't find it in the MOS. Update: found it at MOS:CONSECUTIVE.
- Footnote D may have a factual error. Source 44 says that the pick "turned out to be Mo Moorman", but the table lists Moorman as the Chiefs' own pick and George Daney as the pick traded from the Oilers. Either the source is wrong (in which case another source is needed to prove it) or the table is wrong.
- Footnote I, for the 1984 draft, incorrectly implies that the 5th overall pick (Bill Maas) was traded from the Rams – it should be in the row below for John Alt. The newspaper source (54) says that the 21st overall pick (John Alt) was the one traded. This is correctly written in the footnote, it is simply in the wrong row.
- Footnote F, the NFL source (49) states that the Chiefs got Matuszak and a third-round pick. The NYT source (48) makes no mention of the third-round pick. Pro Football Reference confirms that Kansas had two third-round picks in 1976 [10]. I'm assuming that the NYT article made an erroneous omission – I suggest moving source 49 ahead of 48, and possible removing source 48 entirely. The NFL page cites the Associated Press, perhaps you can find an AP article floating around somewhere to replace the NYT article.
- Footnotes S and Z have other footnotes in them. I think this is okay, I just find it hilarious.
Other prose:
- "1970 AFL–NFL merger" is not great (MOS:SEAOFBLUE). I am not sure that the season link is necessary here, since you're only discussing the merger, so I suggest removing it. If you prefer, you can try rewording it to separate the two links.
- Clarifying the common draft: I think it would be helpful to readers to specify in which years the "common draft" took place. Currently, the article said this took place "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966", which is a little confusing. They actually took place every year for three years, from 1967 to 1969. (This is in the sources already cited, plus a little bit of WP:CALC).
- Last lead paragraph: The jump from "did not draft a player" to "Four of the team's first-round picks" was a little jarring – I was expecting an explanation on why they didn't draft a player in the first round nine times. (I'm assuming they traded their picks to other teams?) Also, when Sayers is mentioned for the second time, only his last name is necessary. Technically the same goes for Buchanan, but since the two mentions are in different paragraphs I don't mind using his full name again.
Sources:
- Sources 19 and 20 are OK. Source 18 should probably use cite web or cite news instead of cite magazine – I couldn't find any indication that it was actually published in the magazine, and it's written "By B. Duane Cross, CNNSI.com". This is a very minor change, but it makes all the difference in the visual editor.
- Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are OK. They do indeed back up everything in the image caption (finding where in the database it shows that he became starting QB in 2018 was a pain, but it's there).
- Source 23 is OK. Since it covers most of the table, I checked some entries at random, found no issues.
- Verified Source 25.
- Source 45 should be titled "The 1968 NFL Draft" or "The 1968 NFL Draft Picks", not "68".
- Source 53, 54, 66, 70 are OK and factually verified. 66 is representative of a slew of similar ones.
- Source 49 verified. See Footnote F above for concern about source 48.
- Source 28 doesn't explicitly say that Gale Sayers was drafted by the Chiefs but signed for the Bears instead. Is it possible to find a source that explicitly says this in a sentence? I don't think combining information from two tables (sources 23 and 28) is unreasonable SYNTH but it would be nice to have this one clarified. Update: Source 26 says this explicitly, I suggest citing it in Sayers's row in the table.
- Source 30 is OK. Thank you for archiving it!
- Sources 50 and 51 are OK. I am impressed by the level of digging and (permissible) SYNTH it took to put together these footnotes – the words "No. 38 overall" require both sources and some addition to deduce.
- Sources 26 and 27 verified. 27 could be retitled "Kansas City Chiefs: Team Greats" for specificity. This has to be deduced from the URL though, so maybe it isn't a good idea.
Table:
- Space before dagger: I think the dagger symbol should be separated from player names by a space to improve readability. Most milhist articles do this in their infoboxes. A counterargument might be that the asterisk doesn't need a space before it, and putting a space before one symbol and not the other might make it inconsistent. Maybe add spaces before both symbols?
- Double dagger in key is unused: the ‡ is in the table key but is never used. I'm pretty sure it should be next to Buck Buchanan's name in the table.
Toadspike (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm taking a break, I think this is enough for tonight. I think I'm about halfway through, I'll come back and finish up tomorrow. Toadspike (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh I've completed my source review, please ping me once you've addressed all my concerns (or once you've explained why they're silly), or if you have questions. My largest lasting concern is making sure that the traded picks in the "Notes" column are listed next to the correct players. Reading my comments above, I found three such errors in the footnotes. You may want to check the few I haven't, especially the older ones not cited to Pro Football Reference (1993 and earlier). Toadspike (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Footnotes:
Second use of "sixth-" in Footnote R is missing a hyphen.
– Fixed.Footnote X ends with a double period ("Jr.."), I think only one is necessary but couldn't find it in the MOS. Update: found it at MOS:CONSECUTIVE.
– Fixed, noted for future reference.Footnote D may have a factual error. Source 44 says that the pick "turned out to be Mo Moorman", but the table lists Moorman as the Chiefs' own pick and George Daney as the pick traded from the Oilers. Either the source is wrong (in which case another source is needed to prove it) or the table is wrong.
– Blech. These situations come up way more often than I like where teams credit the wrong pick of a round. I've replaced that reference with one that does not explicitly call out that the pick turned out to be Mo Moorman.Footnote I, for the 1984 draft, incorrectly implies that the 5th overall pick (Bill Maas) was traded from the Rams – it should be in the row below for John Alt. The newspaper source (54) says that the 21st overall pick (John Alt) was the one traded. This is correctly written in the footnote, it is simply in the wrong row.
– Fixed.Footnote F, the NFL source (49) states that the Chiefs got Matuszak and a third-round pick. The NYT source (48) makes no mention of the third-round pick. Pro Football Reference confirms that Kansas had two third-round picks in 1976 [11]. I'm assuming that the NYT article made an erroneous omission – I suggest moving source 49 ahead of 48, and possible removing source 48 entirely. The NFL page cites the Associated Press, perhaps you can find an AP article floating around somewhere to replace the NYT article.
– Unfortunately, publications of the past had a tendency to focus and value only the first, and sometimes second, round selections, so I often see relevant but smaller details left out of RS. That's a big part of what's made some of these lists difficult. My understand is the the NFL page actually is not citing the Associated Press, but instead giving them credit for the image. Never the less, I agree the NYT's exclusion is an issue, and I've replaced that source.Footnotes S and Z have other footnotes in them. I think this is okay, I just find it hilarious.
– I'm glad you found it amusing! I felt it the best way to consistently point towards the relevant trades when necessary.
- Other prose:
"1970 AFL–NFL merger" is not great (MOS:SEAOFBLUE). I am not sure that the season link is necessary here, since you're only discussing the merger, so I suggest removing it. If you prefer, you can try rewording it to separate the two links.
– Reworded to "The Chiefs joined the NFL prior to the 1970 season as a result of the AFL–NFL merger."Clarifying the common draft: I think it would be helpful to readers to specify in which years the "common draft" took place. Currently, the article said this took place "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966", which is a little confusing. They actually took place every year for three years, from 1967 to 1969. (This is in the sources already cited, plus a little bit of WP:CALC).
– Hm. It just occurred to me, Common draft is not entirely accurate... The "common draft era" refers to anything from the 1967 onwards and is more of an informal name for "NFL draft" now. I've brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#"Common_draft_era". I won't bombard you with the sources that state this here, but this misunderstanding seems mostly related to the state of common draft as opposed to the text that the lead has written. Any thoughts on this with the clarification?Last lead paragraph: The jump from "did not draft a player" to "Four of the team's first-round picks" was a little jarring – I was expecting an explanation on why they didn't draft a player in the first round nine times. (I'm assuming they traded their picks to other teams?) Also, when Sayers is mentioned for the second time, only his last name is necessary. Technically the same goes for Buchanan, but since the two mentions are in different paragraphs I don't mind using his full name again.
– I think the pivot from "did not draft" to "four of the team's first-round picks" isn't bad, but I'm open to suggestions. I think/hope the table speaks for itself in that aspect. I think it'd be difficult to summarize the reasons for this in the lead and that trying to do so would bloat it in a way that would make the article worse. Again though, I'm open to suggestions. Good catch on Sayers, second mention is now just "Sayers". I'd prefer to keep the unlinked full name for Buck Buchanan in the second paragraph, I think it's contextually an improvement over just listing the last name in this case.
- Sources:
Sources 19 and 20 are OK. Source 18 should probably use cite web or cite news instead of cite magazine – I couldn't find any indication that it was actually published in the magazine, and it's written "By B. Duane Cross, CNNSI.com". This is a very minor change, but it makes all the difference in the visual editor.
– The standard, for whatever reason, is to cite Sports Illustrated as a magazine. If I swap it to anything else then Citation Bot would eventually switch it back. See here where it changed it to magazine (as it has across all my featured list nominations). With that said, you did make me realize/become aware of CNN/SI, which I've now changed the publisher to. Fun note, that wasn't automatically changed to magazine by Citation Bot, so that's neat.Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are OK. They do indeed back up everything in the image caption (finding where in the database it shows that he became starting QB in 2018 was a pain, but it's there).
– I think it's a matter of familiarity with the sources. I do agree that, on first look, it can be difficult for people unfamiliar with the site to grasp it, but it does verify it.Source 45 should be titled "The 1968 NFL Draft" or "The 1968 NFL Draft Picks", not "68".
– I feel mixed about this. The page title is just two digits, and I don't really love to editorialize titles to the subtitles.Source 49 verified. See Footnote F above for concern about source 48.
– Addressed above.Source 28 doesn't explicitly say that Gale Sayers was drafted by the Chiefs but signed for the Bears instead. Is it possible to find a source that explicitly says this in a sentence? I don't think combining information from two tables (sources 23 and 28) is unreasonable SYNTH but it would be nice to have this one clarified. Update: Source 26 says this explicitly, I suggest citing it in Sayers's row in the table.
– Source 28 does say he was drafted by both teams, to the same degree that 26 does, but unfortunately it's one of those things tucked away in a tab lower down in the page. I did however just find a better source that I've since added which is more explicit in stating this fact.Sources 50 and 51 are OK. I am impressed by the level of digging and (permissible) SYNTH it took to put together these footnotes – the words "No. 38 overall" require both sources and some addition to deduce.
– Thank you! This feels like how I had to do way too many trades! I wish more sources explicitly stated the pick numbers (and were correct when doing so). Thank goodness for "from Kansas City" lol.Sources 26 and 27 verified. 27 could be retitled "Kansas City Chiefs: Team Greats" for specificity. This has to be deduced from the URL though, so maybe it isn't a good idea.
– Yeah, I try to avoid editorializing titles whenever possible.
- Really there was only one instance where the note was in the wrong place, which I'm quite grateful you caught. Thank you very much for the thorough review, I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Footnotes:
Resolved - Other prose:
- Adjacent links Resolved
- Common draft: Thanks for the explanation. My revised suggestion adding the word 'began':
- As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues began holding a multiple round "common draft".
- This small change should make the situation clear enough and technically correct.
- Last lead paragraph: I now agree that more prose isn't needed here. Sayers' name has been corrected. Resolved
- Adjacent links
- Sources:
- Editorializing titles: Source 27 can be left as-is. However, I still think source 45 should be retitled "The 1968 NFL Draft", which is a huge heading at the top of the webpage. I don't think it's editorializing to use that as the title. "68" seems to just be some sort of web parameter.
- Otherwise Resolved
- Table:
- Have you had a chance to look at this section yet? There is one minor formatting change (really up to you whether you choose to add a space or not), and the wrong symbol next to Buck Buchanan's name (should be ‡, not †).
- Incorrect note: I goofed in summarizing my own comments, this is now Resolved
- Toadspike (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry @Toadspike, I actually missed the table when I copy and pasted your feedback. I've fixed the symbol next to Buck Buchanan's name, that was definitely an error to use † instead of ‡. As for the spacing, I've personally always felt that the symbol right next to the name was preferable over the space, though I understand it's a preference kind of thing. It's something I'll mull over and maybe come back and do in the future, but for the time being, I don't think it's an improvement.
As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues began holding a multiple round "common draft".
– I've made this change and applied it across all of the lists I've worked on for first-round picks.Editorializing titles: Source 27 can be left as-is. However, I still think source 45 should be retitled "The 1968 NFL Draft", which is a huge heading at the top of the webpage. I don't think it's editorializing to use that as the title. "68" seems to just be some sort of web parameter.
– I don't looove it, but I get it. I went ahead and changed it.
- I hope that I've now addressed everything @Toadspike. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Perfect, thank you for the very quick response. All of my concerns have been addressed, source review passed. I support this FLC. Toadspike (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry @Toadspike, I actually missed the table when I copy and pasted your feedback. I've fixed the symbol next to Buck Buchanan's name, that was definitely an error to use † instead of ‡. As for the spacing, I've personally always felt that the symbol right next to the name was preferable over the space, though I understand it's a preference kind of thing. It's something I'll mull over and maybe come back and do in the future, but for the time being, I don't think it's an improvement.
- Footnotes:
- Footnotes:
Promoting. --PresN 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [32].
- Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Knuth, Hopcroft, Lamport, Aho – all authors of CS textbooks, and all winners of the “Nobel Prize of computer science”. My third FL nom; something different this time. I’ve improved the lead, table accessibility, and added a bunch of references. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
DBC
[edit]- Recipient column should sort based on surname, not forename -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Dylan620
[edit]Placeholder for image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Some comments:
- Images need alt text; as of time of writing, only the image of Turing himself has alt text.
- File:Kei younger.jpg is missing author information.
- Images are suitable for identifying their subjects, thereby adding encyclopedic value to the listicle.
- Licensing checks out across the board; all images are either PD or CC, with many having notes that permission for use was granted via VRT correspondence.
- Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: Thanks for the review. I've added alt text for all the images. Is the fact that the author info is missing for the Iverson photo a showstopper at FL? If so, I can remove that image. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: No problem. I don't know for certain if it's a showstopper at FL, but I will say that the last time I brought an image that lacked authorship information at an FLC (which ultimately passed), the nominator seemed to agree that it was an issue and swapped out the image. The uploader of the Iverson image stated that permission had been granted by Iverson's estate, but we don't know for certain if the photo was actually taken by someone representing the estate. Also, at the risk of comparing apples to oranges, I've just looked back through some unsuccessful FLCs and noticed that in a few of them, an issue was that some refs were lacking authorship information. So I'd say remove the photo out of an abundance of caution. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: Removed the photo. There was one other photo of Iverson, but that too had the same issue. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Roger that; pleased to support. BTW, if you have any time or interest, I would greatly appreciate some feedback on a very old FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: Removed the photo. There was one other photo of Iverson, but that too had the same issue. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: No problem. I don't know for certain if it's a showstopper at FL, but I will say that the last time I brought an image that lacked authorship information at an FLC (which ultimately passed), the nominator seemed to agree that it was an issue and swapped out the image. The uploader of the Iverson image stated that permission had been granted by Iverson's estate, but we don't know for certain if the photo was actually taken by someone representing the estate. Also, at the risk of comparing apples to oranges, I've just looked back through some unsuccessful FLCs and noticed that in a few of them, an issue was that some refs were lacking authorship information. So I'd say remove the photo out of an abundance of caution. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: Thanks for the review. I've added alt text for all the images. Is the fact that the author info is missing for the Iverson photo a showstopper at FL? If so, I can remove that image. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Pseud 14
[edit]- major technical importance to computer science.[2] It is generally recognized as the highest distinction in computer science -- MOS:DUPLINK, unlink the second instance of computer science; perhaps worth switching it to in the field or in the field of study to avoid being repetitive.
- theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence[6] and a key contributor -- comma after artificial intelligence
- I would link Word War II, and Google on the first instance.
- That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Pseud 14: done all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- I think the image of Turing would look better in the infobox rather than floating below it
- "and a key contributor to the Allied cryptanalysis of the Enigma cipher during World War II." - no source against this. Is it covered by the reference in the middle of the sentence?
- Entries in the "rationale" column which just consist of a single sentence fragment (eg 1966) don't need a full stop.
- "He is also known as the author, with Wheeler and Gill," - any reason not to show their forenames? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
magiciandude
[edit]- For the editor's notes, I would not put "warning" and instead write Per WP:NFCC, non-free images are not to be used on lists-->
- Are all the rationales quoted? If so, they should use quotation marks.
- See my FL Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame for entries without images. I would just put a dash instead of leaving it blank. But it's up to you.
Once these issues are addressed, I will gladly support this list. Erick (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Magiciandude: Fixed all. I also fixed the same issue in a different FL nom where a few photos were unavailable. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks both for the improvements to this article! Regarding the NFCC warnings -- the idea is to be very direct since editors on this page have repeatedly ignored warnings that have been less direct. (We must have had, oh, 5-10 edits to the page to add photos before the warnings were in place, after they were in place we still got one or two.) I'm open to ways to improve the warning but "Per WP:NFCC, non-free images are not to be used on lists" does not cut it in my experience, as the editors coming to the page to add images are not always familiar with the concept of free use. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. MPGuy2824 you discard the warning part. My final suggestion is that quotes within quotations should use a single quotation mark per MOS:QUOTE. Erick (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Done fixed this Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Caleb Stanford@MPGuy2824 Awesome! I gladly support this article! Erick (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. MPGuy2824 you discard the warning part. My final suggestion is that quotes within quotations should use a single quotation mark per MOS:QUOTE. Erick (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks both for the improvements to this article! Regarding the NFCC warnings -- the idea is to be very direct since editors on this page have repeatedly ignored warnings that have been less direct. (We must have had, oh, 5-10 edits to the page to add photos before the warnings were in place, after they were in place we still got one or two.) I'm open to ways to improve the warning but "Per WP:NFCC, non-free images are not to be used on lists" does not cut it in my experience, as the editors coming to the page to add images are not always familiar with the concept of free use. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [34].
- Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Following a helpful Peer review, I hope this attempt at a comprehensive list of Grade I listed buildings in England dating from the 20th century is ready for FLC. I've ensured there is a corresponding article for every entry. I've not quite achieved that level of completeness with the images, with three missing. The usual sources couldn't help, and two have exceptionally light on-line presences. To explain my thinking on the order, I've taken a thematic approach; cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings; and chronologically within those groups. The table is fully sortable. If nothing else, it will give interested editors the opportunity to derisively critique the inclusion of some structures, and enjoy suggesting their preferred alternatives. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
[edit]- What's the initial sort order of the table? It isn't the name of the building or the architect or the date of either completion or listing. It seems completely random, unless I am missing something obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- It’s a very fair question, and one that was asked at PR. I went for thematic - cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings - and chronologically within that. Now, whether that was the right decision…? I could go strictly chronological, or alphabetical (although that seems equally random), or something else. Would appreciate views on the best approach. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think alphabetizing the name column would be best. I do like the thematic organization, but even then there's chapels interspersed with the churches, memorials with war memorials (but then other memorials later), and other irregularities like the house of St Catherine's College being organized with the college rather than other houses, which are separate from apartment blocks. Maybe change some of them to broader categories (like Bridge instead of Footbridge, Road bridge, and Suspension bridge) so sorting the Type column would work better.
- ChrisTheDude,Reywas92 - Many thanks indeed for the input. I've gone for the suggested Alphabetic approach, and I think it's better. I also took the opportunity to iron out a few other quirks; combining the Footnotes, simplifying the Types, and standardising titles. If either/both of you had time for a review, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think alphabetizing the name column would be best. I do like the thematic organization, but even then there's chapels interspersed with the churches, memorials with war memorials (but then other memorials later), and other irregularities like the house of St Catherine's College being organized with the college rather than other houses, which are separate from apartment blocks. Maybe change some of them to broader categories (like Bridge instead of Footbridge, Road bridge, and Suspension bridge) so sorting the Type column would work better.
- It’s a very fair question, and one that was asked at PR. I went for thematic - cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings - and chronologically within that. Now, whether that was the right decision…? I could go strictly chronological, or alphabetical (although that seems equally random), or something else. Would appreciate views on the best approach. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. I've added a parameter to the header template, so screen-reader-only captions can be added by putting
|caption=your_caption_text
as a template parameter. - I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- PresN - Hi, apologies, but the technical aspects of setting up tables are pretty much beyond me, and I've not got a clue as to what I need to do in response to your comment. I've had a look at the relevant Accessibility page of the MoS and at the accompanying tutorial, but I'm afraid I still can't work out what I'm supposed to do. If you were able to give a little more guidance, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1: You had it mostly right- you just didn't need to wrap the caption in a {{sronly}} template, because I made the {{English Heritage listed building header}} template do that already. I fixed it, so you're all good now. --PresN 16:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- PresN - very much appreciated. Thank you. KJP1 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1: You had it mostly right- you just didn't need to wrap the caption in a {{sronly}} template, because I made the {{English Heritage listed building header}} template do that already. I fixed it, so you're all good now. --PresN 16:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- PresN - Hi, apologies, but the technical aspects of setting up tables are pretty much beyond me, and I've not got a clue as to what I need to do in response to your comment. I've had a look at the relevant Accessibility page of the MoS and at the accompanying tutorial, but I'm afraid I still can't work out what I'm supposed to do. If you were able to give a little more guidance, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- MPGuy2824
- Support on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- MPGuy2824 - with sincere apologies for the delay, a belated appreciation and thanks for your Support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]Dropping a quick note that I'm currently working on an image review. So far I've gotten down to the letter 'H' – hoping to finish tonight or tomorrow. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The image review passes; details below:
- I'm a little dismayed that the alt text for each image consists solely of the building's name—see recent building FAs such as Felix M. Warburg House, 270 Park Avenue (1960–2021), and 550 Madison Avenue for examples of high-quality alt text for images of buildings—but upon further investigation, I discovered that
{{EH listed building row}}puzzlingly makes no allowance for custom alt text. While I strongly believe this should be rectified, it would be unfair to mark down an FLC candidate for the failings of a template, and the alt text that is present in the listicle is better than nothing. - All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
- All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
- Sources for all images check out, although I did choose to AGF on a couple dead Flickr source links.
- The only other comment I have is that the empty image boxes (namely Johnston Monument, New House, and St. Catherine's College Gymnasium) should be made unprintable; see Help:Printing#Controlling_print for details.
- I'm a little dismayed that the alt text for each image consists solely of the building's name—see recent building FAs such as Felix M. Warburg House, 270 Park Avenue (1960–2021), and 550 Madison Avenue for examples of high-quality alt text for images of buildings—but upon further investigation, I discovered that
- Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Dylan620 - First off, thanks very much for the review, and for the Support. Greatly appreciate the time you've taken. On the missing images, I'd be very pleased to make them unprintable - if I had any idea how to do so. I've tried to follow the instructions with the Johnston Memorial as a test, but it doesn't appear to have made any difference. Could you expand on the "how" I should go about this. I'm very sorry, but I'm rather a technical numpty on matters relating to templates (see Table captions above), and a lot else besides (see below). On the issue of alt text, I absolutely appreciate your concern. I've always tried to include useful alt text, e.g. Sandringham House, but I've no idea how to do it in this table, or even if it is possible. If there is a workaround I can adopt, I'd be pleased to do so. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1: No problem. After I wake up some more and have my morning coffee, I'm going to put in an edit request on the template's talk page. Similar to the issue with the alt text, the issue with the placeholder's printability appears to be one with the way the template is coded. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that I've followed through on this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Dylan620 - First off, thanks very much for the review, and for the Support. Greatly appreciate the time you've taken. On the missing images, I'd be very pleased to make them unprintable - if I had any idea how to do so. I've tried to follow the instructions with the Johnston Memorial as a test, but it doesn't appear to have made any difference. Could you expand on the "how" I should go about this. I'm very sorry, but I'm rather a technical numpty on matters relating to templates (see Table captions above), and a lot else besides (see below). On the issue of alt text, I absolutely appreciate your concern. I've always tried to include useful alt text, e.g. Sandringham House, but I've no idea how to do it in this table, or even if it is possible. If there is a workaround I can adopt, I'd be pleased to do so. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- SC
- "the vast majority at the lowest grade, Grade II.": do we need be told again, so soon, that Grade II is the lowest grade?
- No, we do not. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Any reason "against" is bolded?
- I was trying to indicate why modern listed buildings are such a rarity, but I agree it wasn't clear, and have removed. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is it right to say Lutyens has "twenty-one buildings"? The OED stresses "buildings" have walls, roof and an interior space. Would "structures" also work, without giving a slightly misleading feel?
- A very fair point, and have adopted structures. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Linking the St Cat's bike shed just on the words "bike shed" is a bit of an EASTEREGG – any chance the link could be tweaked slightly to make it clear it's not about bike sheds in general?
- Have tried to improve this, but let me know if you think it could be improved further. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- How about "including England's only Grade I listed bike shed." - This makes it specific and still links to the right location? - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done - with thanks. KJP1 (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- How about "including England's only Grade I listed bike shed." - This makes it specific and still links to the right location? - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Have tried to improve this, but let me know if you think it could be improved further. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
That's my lot. The technical breakdown of the listing details is excellent, and the table wonderful. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- SchroCat - Many thanks indeed for the very helpful comments, and glad you liked the list. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Lovely piece of work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to review, and glad you liked it. KJP1 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
[edit]- "Lutyens is followed by the Dane, Arne Jacobsen" – is the architect's nationality relevant?
- Can't remember why I saw fit to mention Jacobsen's nationality, I normally dislike introducing these unnecessarily. It certainly was here, and I've taken it out. KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are inconsistent with your London addresses:
- A lot of them are in the City of Westminster, but though you say so for 55 Broadway, Westminster Cathedral, the Cavell, Queen Alexandra and Queen Victoria memorials and Rodin's Burghers, you don't say so for the Admiralty Arch, Buckingham Palace, Whitehall or Trafalgar Square.
- "City of London, London" looks silly to me, besides being inconsistently applied (to the Lloyds building but not to the Midland Bank in Poultry).
- You tell us the names of one other relevant London borough – Uxbridge – but not those in which are to be found Somers Town, the South Bank, Bloomsbury, Hampstead Garden Suburb, Highgate, Regent's Park, Twickenham, and Tower Hill.
- It would be nice to be consistent, but I must emphasise how much I have enjoyed making the acquaintance of this article again. Splendid stuff! Tim riley talk 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tim riley - Many thanks for having a look. I shall try to get the London addresses consistent over the course of the afternoon - likely interrupted by a siesta! KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- An admirable plan. I usually have forty winks after lunch myself. Tim riley talk 12:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tim riley - I hope they are now done, but I have 3 queries, all relating to Regent's Park. Our article tells me that this is split between Westminster and Camden. I've guessed that Camden covers the more northernly bits, and have therefore placed the Penguin Pool, the Gorilla House, and the Royal College of Physicians in Westminster. Do you happen to know whether that's right? KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. Prince Albert Road separates Camden to the north from Westminster to the south. I'm not sure our article is right in saying that any of the park is within the borders of Camden, though what the administrative arrangements rather than the geographical details are I know not. Tim riley talk 13:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- After a final read-through I am very happy to add my support for the elevation of this article to FL. A delight from start to finish. Tim riley talk 13:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tim riley - very greatly appreciated. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- After a final read-through I am very happy to add my support for the elevation of this article to FL. A delight from start to finish. Tim riley talk 13:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. Prince Albert Road separates Camden to the north from Westminster to the south. I'm not sure our article is right in saying that any of the park is within the borders of Camden, though what the administrative arrangements rather than the geographical details are I know not. Tim riley talk 13:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tim riley - I hope they are now done, but I have 3 queries, all relating to Regent's Park. Our article tells me that this is split between Westminster and Camden. I've guessed that Camden covers the more northernly bits, and have therefore placed the Penguin Pool, the Gorilla House, and the Royal College of Physicians in Westminster. Do you happen to know whether that's right? KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- An admirable plan. I usually have forty winks after lunch myself. Tim riley talk 12:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tim riley - Many thanks for having a look. I shall try to get the London addresses consistent over the course of the afternoon - likely interrupted by a siesta! KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Support from Serial
[edit]
Coming in on the coattails, but. Copy-edited a couple of odd bits in the lead; the rest is perfection "from the beginning unto the end". And a beautiful table! Shame about those two missing images, of course. It might be worth asking at the relevant Wiki projects, perhaps? ——Serial Number 54129 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129 - Really appreciate the comments and the Support. And glad you liked the list. I know, the two missing images are bloody infuriating! For the Johnston, I've asked at the Hertfordshire Project but had no joy. For a work by Gill, it is weirdly uncovered online, this [35] being the only image I've been able to find, and it's not usable. The problem with The New House is that the family guard their privacy, and there is absolutely no public access anywhere near. What images there are online are ferociously copyrighted! I shall continue to search. KJP1 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- p.s. for completeness, I've also asked at the University of Oxford project for a pic of the St Catz gym/squash courts, but also without success. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- p.p.s. I wonder if I could use the Johnston under Fair Use, as I did for Tower of the Koutoubia Mosque? I might ask Nikkimaria. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's always worth asking, but I've found that it's difficult to get justification for free-use use in a list, which is why there are a couple of gaps in this article I wish I could fill. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- SchroCat - I fear you might be right. But surely this image of Tate, [36], which is all over the web, must be out of copyright? As for Day-Lewis, this sits on Commons? Ted Hughes, I guess, is still under the copyright of the estate. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's always worth asking, but I've found that it's difficult to get justification for free-use use in a list, which is why there are a couple of gaps in this article I wish I could fill. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, KJP1, I think that the image has to be "the object of discussion in an article", rather than a small portion of it. That would be why the tower passed the NFCC criteria—because the article was about the tower itself—whereas that may not be the case here. Still asking. ——Serial Number 54129 13:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, so a passing mention in a list is insufficient grounds. It's a pity, as gaps in lists are a real bugbear! KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please get a second opinion though! I wouldn't want to wrongly rob an image from you :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, so a passing mention in a list is insufficient grounds. It's a pity, as gaps in lists are a real bugbear! KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- p.p.s. I wonder if I could use the Johnston under Fair Use, as I did for Tower of the Koutoubia Mosque? I might ask Nikkimaria. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- p.s. for completeness, I've also asked at the University of Oxford project for a pic of the St Catz gym/squash courts, but also without success. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [40].
- Nominator(s): B3251 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
First ever featured list nomination! I updated the list (additions/removals/tag changes) with current information, which can be found here (this is not a full list but rather an addendum update from 2023, so I also used the 2017 checklist to double check the tags). I also added photos, copyedited some of the families' descriptions, and added a description introducing the reader to New Brunswick and its geography. I took reference from the recently-promoted List of birds of Alberta and its nomination to make edits to the New Brunswick list, and reused a good amount of references to make sure each family description has citations here as well. Improving New Brunswick-related topics on Wikipedia has been my top priority since I began actively editing a year ago, and I'm more than happy to nominate this for featured list status. I do not have access to the book that the Alberta list nominator used for the family descriptions so I am more than happy to rewrite them if needed using alternate sources such as Birds of the World, which I have an institutional access to. B3251 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Move Old World vulture link to first usage
- Suggest linking Old World flycatchers
- Passerine is inconsistently capitalised
- "The vireos are a group of small to medium-sized passerine birds mostly restricted to the New World," - link New World?
- "The thrushes are a group of passerine birds that occur mainly but not exclusively in the Old World" - same with Old World
- "The yellow-breasted chat is the [....] and are" - grammatical disagreement here
- Under Cardinals and allies there's no line break after the order and family
- That's all I got - awesome work!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude everything fixed, thank you for the comment! B3251 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
_%E2%80%93_Virunga_National_Park_(12).jpg){kind=link}
_%E2%80%93_Virunga_National_Park_(15).jpg){kind=link}
_%E2%80%93_Virunga_National_Park_(29).jpg){kind=link}
Grungaloo
[edit]Great to see this! I took the List of Birds of Alberta to FL and I'm glad to see other Canadian provinces getting the same treatment!
- Lead - Accidental vs Rare. I wouldn't use the word "rare" to describe accidentals since then it's hard to distinguish how it's different from rare. Try something like "a species that does not often occur...".
- which has disputed sovereignty between New Brunswick and Maine - The sovereignty dispute is between Canada and the USA technically, would reword this to state that but you can still say that each Province/State includes it in their territory.
- Gulls, terns, and skimmers - I left out any discussion of skimmers in the family description since none appear in Alberta, but for New Bruinswick I'd suggest adding a line describing them. If you'd like I can look at the reference book I used and add that in.
Everything else looks great! grungaloo (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have made the adequate changes but if you could help out with the reference for skimmers it would be much appreciated. I have institution access to birdsoftheworld but not much was mentioned about skimmers aside from "skimmers use their highly specialized bills to snag their prey from the surface of calm water, often in gracefully coordinated bands." Thanks! B3251 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to ping @Grungaloo B3251 (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- MPGuy2824
- "They typically feed on seeds and fruit plants and produce". Add a comma after "plants".
- "Their soft plumage is cryptically coloured". Probably worth linking "cryptically coloured" to camouflage.
- In Shearwaters and petrels: "long outer functional primary". Either a word is missing at the end, or a wikilink needs to be added.
- "The bill is also long, decurved in the case of the ibises" Add a wikilink to explain "decurved", or replace with "downwardly curved". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done @MPGuy2824 B3251 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support for prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Dylan620
[edit]Big fan of birds here. Always love seeing the cute little feathery critters whenever I'm out and about. I'll try to have an image review done within the next couple days :) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Some comments:
- Images need alt text.
- File:Sharp-shinned Hawk (50958298391).jpg contains a watermark in the lower-left corner of the photo. Commons does have other images of the species available to choose from.
- Sourcing for each image is verified, though I did AGF on a dead Flickr link for an uploaded that has since been made unavailable on their site, whether by deletion or an adjustment in privacy settings.
- The encyclopedic value is where this set of images really shines; I see a lot of strikingly detailed photos of a wide range of fascinating specimens.
- Once alt text has been added (or a reasonable justification against doing so has been provided) and a new A. striatus image has been selected, I look forward to supporting this nomination. Great work overall. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for my late response, Done for the alt text and changing the image for A. striatus. Thank you, B3251 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: (forgot to do this) B3251 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support, with the caveat that I made a few minor adjustments. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the adjustments made. I just recently thought of this and figured I'd ask here, but would it be worth adding the French names of each species in prose due to New Brunswick having an official bilingual status? B3251 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can't see why not. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the adjustments made. I just recently thought of this and figured I'd ask here, but would it be worth adding the French names of each species in prose due to New Brunswick having an official bilingual status? B3251 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support, with the caveat that I made a few minor adjustments. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: (forgot to do this) B3251 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for my late response,
.jpg){kind=link}
Image review by Z1720
[edit]- File:Poecile hudsonicus 7.jpg: the link to the image doesn't work, but the image was reviewed in 2010 as it was uploaded from Flickr. I am inclined to say that this upload message still stands.
- Suggest replacing the purple martin image as the angle and railing in the image makes it difficult to see the bird.
- File:Posing Razorbill (52058500088).jpg and File:Atlantic Puffin - Fratercula arctica, Machias Seal Island, New Brunswick.jpg: Per MOS:UPRIGHT, use upright instead of px in image sizing.
- Alt text is in all images.
- Captions are fine
Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done any necessary changes, also changed the image of the boreal chickadee B3251 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I keep forgetting to do this! Sorry! @Z1720: B3251 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Concerns have been resolved so I support based on image review. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I keep forgetting to do this! Sorry! @Z1720: B3251 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh
- Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|April 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description
- Ref 1 – Remove the website parameter, this part is covered by the publisher
- Ref 1 – Add author and publish date
- Ref 5 – Please change this to list Tourism New Brunswick as the publisher instead of just the website
- Ref 6 – Use Bay of Fundy as the publisher instead of the website
- Ref 7 – Remove the website parameter, the publisher is listed and that's adequete
- Ref 10 – Wikilink American Ornithological Society
- Ref 14 and 24 – Wikilink Animal Diversity Web
- Ref 15 – No access date listed
- Ref 17 – No access date
- Ref 18 – Wikilink Cornell Lab of Ornithology
- Ref 19 – Wikilink Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
- Ref 21 – Remove the website parameter
- Ref 21 – I'm not seeing where you get the date of 7 November 2014 for this reference
- Ref 22 – Remove the website from this reference, covered by the publisher
- Ref 32 – Use (and wikilink) Encyclopædia Britannica as the publisher instead
- Ref 32 – Remove the website parameter, covered by the publisher
- Refs 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, and 39 – Add wikilink to Birds of the World
- A number of these are missing access dates, please review and add where possible
- Consider running WP:IABOT to add more archive links where possible
That's what I got in my initial review. Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: Done making the necessary changes, as well as a few other improvements. I appreciate the extensive ref review, I'm definitely going to take these tips into consideration in the future beyond FL candidacy! B3251 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
