Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

List of miniopterids

Nominator(s): PresN 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Back with bats list #3 and mammal list #44: Miniopteridae. These are the 31 species of bent-winged bats, once again a pack of very small bats (the size of your thumb, or at most two thumbs) but this time with oversized wings. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family... there's some disagreement on if some of the Southeast Asia species should be split up into multiple, but this is where it stands today. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - always very straightforward to review your animal lists, @PresN: :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Licenses are fine, images are appropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• You know the drill.
• Executive summary: I didn't find any problems.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. See above for the image review.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Support. If it were anybody else who kept so flawlessly pulling off their references, I would assume I was missing something. Not that I'd ever try these lists, they're too much for me, but I have found it neat to be doing the source reviews on these bat lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 13 September 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Green Bay Packers NFL Anniversary All-Time Team selections

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The last in the list of all-time team selections for the Packers. As always, happy to address any concerns or issues promptly. Thanks for reviewing! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• In addition to the 16 players named to the team, two runners-up were named for each of the 15 positions, for a total of 46 players - Unsure about whether that two complies with MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• 19 players were named to the "two-way team", with six - Sure that one doesn't.
• There are several instances of this throughout the text. Please have a look at them.
• 25 years later - Sentence shouldn't begin with a number.
• 19 players - Ditto.
• 100 players - Ditto.
• Refs should be Refs..
• Both two-way and players who played significant time at both offensive and defensive positions link to the same article. I guess the first link would do.
• Could the years of the 75th and 100th anniversaries be stated? Something along the lines of Twenty-five years later, in 1994, the NFL 75th Anniversary All-Time Team was selected...
• There are two consecutive were just inducted. Can one be changed to were only inducted or something similar?

That's what I saw, Gonzo fan2007. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Alavense, thank you for the (quick!) review. I have addressed all of team except "starting a sentence with a number" comments. Is there an MOS you can reference on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits, Gonzo fan2007. And sure, it can also be found at MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure". Maybe I wasn't clear enough: I don't mean that starting the sentence with a number is wrong, but that it should be spelt out rather than a figure. Alavense (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Alavense, all fixed. Thanks again! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I corrected a couple more, but those were just minor fixes. Nice work on the list and thanks for the prompt responses. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Don Hutson was one of only two Packers' players" - no need for possessive apostrophe (you wouldn't say "one of only two Green Bay's players")
• Same where it appears in the prose
• "Twelve of the Packers selections" - conversely you do need a possessive apostrophe here
• "Three players (Len Ford, Ted Hendricks and Emlen Tunnell) were just inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" - I think "Three players (Len Ford, Ted Hendricks and Emlen Tunnell) were inducted into just the Pro Football Hall of Fame" would read better
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, I have addressed all your comments. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• "Years with Packers" column – Would replacing "years" with "seasons" be more appropriate? I'm thinking of the fact that sometimes a season bleeds over into the next year.
  • I think almost every list I have done has "years" instead of "seasons"
    • Well, I won't let this be the sole hangup and reason not to support, but I do think it's something to consider implementing in your lists. I've tried to make that distinction typically for that reason, especially when talking about the draft (ugh, multiple drafts in the same year for different seasons so many times). Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Hey man im josh, I am sorry, I started drafting this response and then forgot to complete my thoughts. I will take a look at all of them and get back to you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
        • I fixed this here and on my other lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 4 – Change "San Bernardino Sun" to "The San Bernardino Sun"
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Position column could probably use a note that says something along the lines of "the most recent designation in an anniversary team"
  • So position is weird, because they changed the names of it throughout the years. Hutson was a "Split end" in the 50th team and a "wide receiver" in the 75th and 100th teams. I am open to ideas? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Oh I know the position stuff is super weird sometimes and Don Hutson is exactly who I had in mind when I mentioned it. This makes me think of the "MT" position, which turned out to be middle tackle on a line of what I believe was several tackles instead of just a (defensive) "end". Also halfback vs running back. Anyways though, I also look at a guy like Boyd Dowler, he was listed as a flanker for most of his career. Maybe usage of notes here could be helpful? It's tough. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what to say about two-way players, specifically Cal Hubbard, who are only listed as one position, but then you have Clarke Hinkle who's listed as a two-way player as their position. Something should probably be done to clear this up a bit for the few players who are affected.
  • So back in the day, "tackle" and "end" were both offensive and defensive positions. Hubbard though played fullback and linebacker. That's why I did it that way. I never want to list out every single position these guys played, as many had kicking duties too. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm familiar with how complicated and silly it gets. Perhaps usage of notes could make this better, or the position column could become a position(s) column in which you list positions that a player was selected for a team as, as opposed to their definitive position at the time? I'm brainstorming here, but I think it could be improved upon in some way. I look at this list and I go "woah, what other position did Hutson play again?" Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That's all I've got. I will say I was pretty pissed off at ref #6 though. Joe Schmidt was snubbed! Hey man im josh (talk)

Responses above Hey man im josh. Thank you for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Responses above Gonzo_fan2007. I know my answers are in no way definitive, since I'm not really sure what I'm even asking, I just know we can talk it out and maybe improve it. Also noting that source review now passed since the only issue I had with references has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, what would you think of just adding a note that says "The naming of positions has changed throughout the history of the NFL. The positions provided are the modern equivalent as identified by Pro-Football-Reference.com." « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I think that's better than what we have now, but I feel mixed about Boyd Dowler, who was listed as a flanker and end. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh how about The naming of positions has changed throughout the history of the NFL. The positions provided are the player's position their last season in the NFL as identified by Pro-Football-Reference.com. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Sorry for the delay in replying. I really don't think there's a perfect way after giving it thought, but so long as we call out why there would be an inconsistency with what some people might expect (expecting a flanker to be listed as a WR), I think we've done our due diligence. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is the edit Hey man im josh. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll support! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Image review – All photos used in the article have appropriate free licensing, captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 28 September 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1974

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's the 14th nomination in this series. In this particular year Jim Croce scored two number ones despite the fact that he had sadly died the previous year. Comments as ever gratefully received -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• In the first caption, maybe say something like "for two weeks"?
• As with previous lists, you could state when the first issue of the year was published.
• I'm unsure about the Three Degrees and the Love Unlimited Orchestra. Is "the" part of the name? If it is, shouldn't it be capitalized? If it is not, shouldn't it be removed from the table? Ignore my comment if I got it completely wrong.
• Consider adding {{abbr}} for Ref., as in previous lists.

That's what I saw, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: - points 1, 2, and 4. Re: point 3, see MOS:THEBAND, which says that with music acts whose names start with "The", that word should not have a capital T in prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. And I learnt something new today! Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

I'm stumped, I got nothing to suggest! Great job Chris, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Your image of Jim Croce looks like it was derived from some version of File:Jim Croce publicity portrait ABC Records (cropped).jpg. I say that because the image you're using doesn't have any source information (and the tag it uses probably needs a source to back up what the tag is saying), and the links for previous versions of the image are all dead (usually! but sometimes not) ... but the original image does have source information, so maybe it would be better to use that one.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Dank: - many thanks for your review. I changed the Jim Croce image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It's such a pleasure to read your lists, especially this latest series. And thanks for all the work you've been doing at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
      • @Dank: - thank you for those kind words. I think I saw that you also have an open nom so I will look at that in due course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Couldn't find any issues, but see if you want to use the cropped version of Croce's image. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:52, 15 September 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC) [4].

---

List of municipalities in Toledo

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)

We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made an excellent template based on our last nomination and we have one more nomination that already has several supports. We have incorporated those changes into this nomination. Should go smoothly but we are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing, great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Dantheanimator comments

• "in the autonomous community of Castilla–La Mancha, Spain that is divided" ==> "in the autonomous community of Castilla–La Mancha, Spain, that is divided" (add comma after Spain)

I'd already fixed that yesterday. Alavense (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

• "According to the 2023 Spanish census" => I'd recommend trying to link "2023 Spanish census" with some sort of related article about it if there is (most likely using an ILL to the Spanish Wikipedia?). I tried searching but couldn't find any article exactly about it but, if it helps, I think this article on the Spanish Wikipedia could help.

There is no article for the 2023 Spanish census. Until 2021, they were only published every ten years and it's only in the last few years that we get an anual census. Besides, that article in the Spanish Wikipedia about the demographics is severely outdated. Alavense (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well don't worry about it then, looks good now.

• "According to the 2023 Spanish census, the province is the 23rd largest by population with 731,112 inhabitants but is the 7th largest by land area spanning 15,369 square kilometres (5,934 sq mi)." ==> I think there should be commas after "by population", "inhabitants", & "by land area"

Reply: I saw you reworded the lead so ignore this suggestion. Instead though, based on the current wording, I recommend having it as: "As of the 2023 Spanish census, the province is the 23rd largest by population with 731,112 inhabitants and the 7th largest by land area, spanning 15,369 square kilometres (5,934 sq mi)"

I added the comma and removed the redundant "is". Do you mind having "but" instead of "and", though? I think it's a good word to point out the gap between 23rd and 7th. It's a very big province, but it isn't very populated, though. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that works fine too. Thanks for the other fixes! :) Dan the Animator 05:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy in their local administration. Amongst other tasks, they are in charge of urban planning, water supply, lighting, road network, local police and fire fighting." ==> recommend rewording for tone/concision (better sentence?: "Municipalities have a large degree of autonomy in their local administration, with some responsibilities including urban planning, water supply, lighting, road network, local police and fire fighting."

Reply: I still think combining the sentences would be good but let me know your thoughts about the above suggestion

Done. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! Just one minor rewording suggestion: "being in charge of tasks such as urban planning, water supply" (its generally better to avoid using the word "like" when possible since its often makes the tone less formal)

Done. Alavense (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thought I'd suggest this but I don't think its too necessary to list out the different tasks municipalities help with (e.g., just say "Municipalities are given a large degree of autonomy in their local administration."). I think its kind of assumed/implied already in the phrase "large degree of autonomy in their local administration" (for comparison, I don't go into details about what Ukrainian raions are responsible/capable for in my Ukraine Oblast lists, instead mostly relying on the link to districts, which has much of the info about local powers). That said, I think it also might make sense to turn it into an efn note (so change it to: Municipalities are given a large degree of autonomy in handling their local administration.{{efn|Amongst some of the responsibilities of the governments of municipalities are urban planning, water supply, lighting, road network, local police and fire fighting.}})

I do think it's important to point out what those tasks are, so I wouldn't relegate that information to a note. This list is about two things (1) municipalities 2) in the province of Toledo) and I think it's essential to cover both in the text: 1) explain what municipalities are for, what they do and how they are legally regulated and 2) give some information about municipalities in the province of Toledo, and that's why we also include information about the most and least populous and the largest and smallest municipalities. Besides, there's only a single sentence about the tasks, no more than twenty words. Alavense (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense but that sentence just sounded overly detailed when read in my opinion and its good to avoid repeating too much information from other articles (in this case, the full list of all the powers/responsibilities of the municipalities would probably be detailed in Municipalities of Spain I think). I have very little knowledge of the Spanish administrative system so I guess my question is whether the specific powers/responsibilities listed are unique to/notable for Toledo's municipalities or are just some examples of what municipalities in Spain generally handle? If the specific responsibilities listed are unique, than it makes sense to have it here but if these are common responsibilities amongst all municipalities in Spain, I feel like it would be better just to leave it in the Municipalities of Spain article and have a link to there. Interested to hear your thoughts about it though.

I do see your point. Having combined the sentences already, though, it's a mere half a sentence and I think it does no harm and is actually valuable to have it there. Let me know what you think, please. Alavense (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the way it reads now is fine. Only the small word change mentioned above (switching out "like" with "such as" or something similar) is needed and I think it should be good to go. :) Dan the Animator 05:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Alavense (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• The sentences "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy [...] local police and fire fighting." should go after the sentence "Municipalities are the basic local political division in Spain, and can only belong to one province."

Re Still needs a reply.

Done. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The organisation of the municipalities is outlined in a local government law"

• Organization of which municipalities? (recommend rewording to "The organisation of Toledo's 204 municipalities is")

The organization of all the Spanish municipalities is outlined in that law and that royal decree. Alavense (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense, thanks! Recommend rewording to this for clarity then: "The organisation of municipalities in Spain is outlined"

Another very nice idea. Implemented. Thanks. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Elaborate on what local government law means. Is this a law created/enacted by the municipalities individually, by the Toledo provincial government, by the Castilla–La Mancha autonomous community, by someone/something else?

It's a law whose aim is to regulate local government. I linked that article for clarity. Alavense (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the link helps! :)

• "(Ley 7/1985, de 2 de abril, Reguladora de las Bases del Régimen Local)" ==> add in the lang template after it so that it looks like this: "(Spanish: Ley 7/1985, de 2 de abril, Reguladora de las Bases del Régimen Local; transl. Law 7/1985, of 2 April, Regulating the Bases of the Local Administration)"

Done. Alavense (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• "passed on 2 April 1985, completed by an 18 April 1986 royal decree" ==> better?: "passed on 2 April 1985, and enacted by an 18 April 1986 royal decree"

I don't think enacted would mean the same as completed. They are different texts, one is a law and the other one is a royal decree - the royal decree doesn't enact the law. Alavense (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Maybe would finalise be better? In either case, recommend rewording it to have the and ("passed on 2 April 1985 and finalised by an 18 April 1986 royal decree")

I had a go at it. Let me know if you are happy with that. Thanks once again. Alavense (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

After taking another look, it's getting close. The only thing is to take out the word "then" (e.g. "The organisation of municipalities in Spain is outlined in a local government law passed on 2 April 1985 and then finalised by an 18 April 1986 royal decree." reads better without it). Dan the Animator 05:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• "plenary assembly (pleno) of councillors (concejales)." ==> try to link councillors if possible

Done. Alavense (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• maybe add inter language links (ILLs) to ayuntamiento, alcalde, tenientes de alcalde, pleno, and/or concejales, if possible?

I added internal links where possible. Alavense (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

• "meet periodically at the seat of the ayuntamiento, more or less often depending on the population of the municipality:" ==> "meet periodically at the seat of the ayuntamiento, typically often depending on the population of the municipality:"

I don't understand what typically often would mean in that context. The purpose of the sentence is to point out that they meet more often or less frequently according to the population. Alavense (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, I misread it. Usually more or less is used as a synonym for "in general"/"basically" and similar words/phrases. I'd recommend rewording to something like "meet periodically at the seat of the ayuntamiento, with meetings occurring more or less frequently depending on the population of the municipality"

I really like that. Done. Thank you. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Be consistent with the use of councillors vs. concejales (e.g. "by population for the purpose of determining the number of concejales:" probably should be changed to say councillors, etc.)

Done. Alavense (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Many ayuntamientos also have a local governing board (Spanish: junta de gobierno local), named by the mayor from amongst the councillors—it is required for municipalities of more than 5,000 inhabitants. The junta de gobierno local, whose role is to assist the mayor between meetings of the plenary assembly, may not include more than one third of the councillors" ==> "Many ayuntamientos also have a local governing board (Spanish: junta de gobierno local), named by the mayor from amongst the councillors and which cannot include more than one third of the councillors. These boards are required for municipalities of more than 5,000 inhabitants and generally are responsible for assisting the mayor between meetings of the plenary assembly."

Re Still needs a reply

I worded those sentences that way because of the references. If it's a pressing matter, though, I can give a go at rewording it. Alavense (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hm, maybe as a small easy improvement to make it flow better and which should align with the references, reword the sentences as "Many ayuntamientos also have a local governing board (Spanish: junta de gobierno local), which is named by the mayor from amongst the councillors and is required for municipalities of more than 5,000 inhabitants. The board, whose role is to assist the mayor between meetings of the plenary assembly, may not include more than one third of the councillors"

It's alright as-is too although I would definitely recommend switching out "junta de gobierno local" with "board" for consistency (similar to the councillors/concejales change earlier). Dan the Animator 06:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Alavense (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The largest municipality by population in the province of Toledo as of the 2023 Spanish census is Toledo, its capital, with 85,818 residents, while the smallest is Illán de Vacas with 3 residents. The largest municipality by area is Los Yébenes, which spans 676.16 km², while El Puente del Arzobispo is the smallest at 0.98 km²." ==> "As of the 2023 Spanish census, the largest municipality by population in the province is the provincial capital Toledo, with 85,818 residents, while the smallest is Illán de Vacas, with 3 residents. The largest municipality by area is Los Yébenes, which spans 676.16 km², while El Puente del Arzobispo is the smallest at 0.98 km²."

I think it reads better the way it is now. the province is the provincial reads repetitive in my opinion. Alavense (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That's alright. Two edits that should be made though: "in the province of Toledo" should just be "in the province" since its already clear enough which province this is about, and there should be a comma after Illán de Vacas.

Done. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• add in the convert temps for all units (example: {{convert|676.16|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}})

Is it necessary for all units? I think it would make the table a bit crammed. Square kilometres are the one and only measure unit used in Spain (and that's the country this list is about), so, from my point of view, including that one convert template at the beginning of the introduction, for the most general piece of information (the one relating to the province as a whole), is more than enough. Alavense (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Feel free to leave them off if you want. I thought I'd suggest in case it helps.

That's everything I have for now. I'd strongly recommend retroactively and proactively applying whatever changes/edits you make on this list to the previous and future Spanish municipalities FLNs. Any case, great work with this list! :) Dan the Animator 14:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. We always include the suggestions to other lists. :) Alavense (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks Alavense!! :)

Actually, a few more suggestions...

• For the Land area (km²) column, consider making it so that it includes the square miles conversion for each (example: List of spits of Ukraine). Not that its required but I think it helps sometimes, although it's also completely fine as-is too.

Replied to above. Alavense (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• The "Change" column should be renamed "Population change" or, if to keep it short, use the abbr template to make it "Pop. change"

Done. Alavense (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• If the abbr template is used, consider switching the Population density column title with "Pop. density (2023)"

After all, I decided it was better to have the full words, in line with the other columns. Alavense (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds and looks good to me ;)

• For the photo captions, for consistency & concision:

• "Toledo is the province's capital and largest municipality by population." ==> "Toledo, the capital and largest municipality by population in Toledo Province"
• "Talavera de la Reina, the second most populous municipality in the province of Toledo" ==> "Talavera de la Reina, the second most populous municipality in the province"
• "Illescas is the province of Toledo's third largest municipality by population." ==> "Illescas, the province's third largest municipality by population"
• "Seseña, the province of Toledo's fourth most populous municipality" ==> "Seseña, the fourth most populous municipality in the province"

Is consistency really needed here? I don't think having a bit of variety amongst the captions does any harm. Alavense (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Great point. Feel free to ignore this suggestion :)

• For the gallery title, "Largest municipalities in the province of Toledo by population", I'd recommend just saying "Largest municipalities in the province by population"; this list is about Toledo province so there's no need to specify that much imo.

I removed the "Toledo" from the previous sentence as suggested above, but I'm in two minds about this one. Maybe, being the title of a gallery, it should be understandable on its own? I remember having read somewhere that image captions have to be understood without the help of the article title or anything else, so I thought something similar would apply here. What do you think, Dantheanimator? Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

On a second look and thinking it over more, probably best to leave it as-is. A lot of other FLs (including one I got promoted semi-recently) also include the province/region name so probably better to keep it. Dan the Animator 06:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hope these help! Dan the Animator 14:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Dantheanimator. I replied to a few suggestions, but I'd also like to have Mattximus' opinion on the others. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries and many thanks for another great list! :) Dan the Animator 03:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging Mattximus to take a look over the new replies. Thanks y'all again for the amazing list and improving the coverage on Spain! Muchas gracias! :) Dan the Animator 03:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Muchas gracias a ti. :) I've replied to all the suggestions now, Dantheanimator. Some of them require further comments from you. Thank you very much for the useful suggestions and your patience. Alavense (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Gracias Alavense! Yo publicado nuevos mensajes en la reseña. Espero que te ayuden. (also, sorry if the Spanish is a bit off, it's been a while since I've practiced) ;) Dan the Animator 06:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think every comment has already been addressed now, Dantheanimator. Let me know if anything else is required. The Spanish is almost flawless. :) Thanks again, Alavense (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alavense! :) I went through and made one really minor copyedit but it looks perfect now! Support promoting this to FL status! Congrats on another successful FLN! ;) Dan the Animator 19:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Matthewrb

• I would recommend making use of one {{as of}} in the lead - that will automatically mark the statements as needing updating. For example, paragraph 1 sentence 2:

  {{as of|pre=According to the|2023}} Spanish census, the province is the [[Ranked lists of Spanish provinces#Population and geography|23rd largest by population]] [...]

  will render as:

  According to the 2023 Spanish census, the province is the 23rd largest by population

  but will be added to Category:Articles_containing_potentially_dated_statements_from_2023

Done. Alavense (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Your alt text in the gallery should describe the images. For example: File:Toledo (37737041515).jpg currently has the alt text "City view of Toledo" but I would recommend adding more detail: "A city view of Toledo. In the foreground is a blue-green river with plants along the bank, and in the background are buildings which are built up a hillside". For more information, see MOS:ALT.

Does it need to be that specific, though? In MOS:ALT, I read Alternative text should be short, such as "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush". Alavense (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I was told it always needs to be specific, because alt text is only read by a screen reader when the image isn't shown. In my example above, you see that the important information ("A city view of Toledo") are the first few words. A better example would be the first row of the "Examples" section of MOS:ALT, where the Denmark Flag is described. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Can you please help me with that, Mattximus? Alavense (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Done, and yes I do recall the alt captions needing to specifically describe the image. All changes made. Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Per MOS:FOOTER, rather than using the commons category box in the Works Cited section, you should use {{commons category-inline}} under an External Links section.

Done. Alavense (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what I got. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Matthewrb. Two done, I've replied to the suggestion about the alt text. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Well done! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:25, 25 September 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, 25 September 2024 (UTC) [5].

---

List of generation IX Pokémon

Nominator(s): Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This list covers the fictional Pokémon species that have been introduced in the ninth generation of the Pokémon media franchise, specifically Pokémon from the video games Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. I've gone through the list and included what information I could about each species using high quality sources in order to create as comprehensive a list as possible with what sources exist, with a summary of the franchise and the ninth generation's setting included in the article's lead. I believe this meets FL criteria due to its expansive scope of coverage and verifiability in reliable publications. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: The reference formatting will need some work for consistency. I'm noting that, while there are Wikilinks in refs, probably at least half of the references are missing them. I added some with a quick find and replace, but I thought I'd mention it early on so you can address is. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'll get around to patching those up once I've got a bit of free time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh I've hyperlinked all sites that have associated Wikipedia articles. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from BP!

I thought about reviewing this since I possiboy need more reviewers at my FAC.

• I'm not sure if you already addressed some my comments from the peer review, but the I noticed there are publications/magazines still aren't linked yet

• Link Polygon and Nintendo Life at reception.

• Be consistent with whether or not the citations use title case for the titles. Make sure to italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

• Put url/website at Ref 3, a google book works.

• What makes DenFaminicoGamer and Gayming Magazine reliable?

• Ref 30 and ref 38 are missing date of publication.

• I don't feel Radio Times is a reliable source for video games articles.

• ref 124 magazine was full capitalized?

• replace the "gamesradar" into GamesRadar+ at ref 131

• ref 166 magazine should be only RPG. Do not include other things such as "WWW".

• ref 184 is missing author. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza! I've addressed the links since you've made your comment, and I've additionally addressed the bulk of your concerns. As for a few particular points:

-What is "title case"? I've genuinely never heard of this before, and would appreciate clarification on what it is.

-Radio Times is more than reliable. It's a highly well-respected publisher for entertainment related information and has been for decades. It has been used without issue in entertainment-related articles and is of generally high quality. Its usage shouldn't be of concern.

-Ref 166 should be "RPGFan," not RPG, as RPGFan is actual the name of the website. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Game titles like for example in ref 134 there is a game title from the publication's title called "Pokémon Scarlet and Violet", it should be italicized for consistency. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll ping you once I've made adjustments to those. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza! I've made the requested adjustments. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I will abstain from voting for now until other people have already chimed in here I supposed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 I red the article again and I think I don't have issues anymore at this. So, I'll Support this. If you're willing to review my FAC also, feel free to chime in. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Can't images be added for the species? In other lists, you would expect to maybe find the image when you click on the article, but there's never going to be an article for the majority of these Pokémon, so I think it would be useful.
  • Note: Typed this before Pres sent their comment below, but basically the reasons he described. However, for further clarification, there have been no images published that I can find that depict all of them as a group, and mocking one up would require individual fair use rationales for every image, which would be a gross fair use violation. It simply isn't feasible at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    • My bad, then. Sorry. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• based on Spain and the Iberian Peninsula - The wording there is weird, given that Spain is part of the peninsula.
  • Clarified wording on the Iberian Peninsula. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Scarlet and Violet also features - "feature", for consistency's sake.
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• There should be consistency as to whether "and" has to be in italics. You have Pokémon Scarlet and Violet but Pokémon Black and White. There are several instances of these with different colours.
  • Fixed all of them. Let me know if I missed any. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• How does the list before the actual list help? I mean, the order is the same, so I don't really see how that helps.
  • I assume you mean the hyperlinked list of species before the main list when you mean "the list before the list"? That's there primarily in case a reader is looking for any particular Pokémon, which will allow them to hyperlink straight to a specific one. While it's use cases are admittedly niche, it's still a helpful navigational tool and doesn't take up so much space to the point it proves detrimental to the list overall, so I see no need to cut it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• I don't understand why all the descriptions are merged in the last column, given that they are for each individual Pokémon. You have a row for Sprigatito, another one for Floragato and another one for Meowscarada. Why merge then in the last column? I think this is only justified when the information is scarce.
  • Descriptions are merged primarily because they are more effectively covered in this way for the bulk of the species. It makes more sense to cover multiple associated subjects as part of one uniform group, or in this case, a cell, so readers will know these subjects are associated more easily, among several other reasons. I could admittedly split some off, but the subjects with enough coverage to split into another cell are primarily those who already have articles where that information is better summarized. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with that, but then again, if that's the case, reading is a futuristic Paradox Pokémon resembling six times in a row feels a bit weird. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

      I can probably reword those, but I'm not sure what would work best to convey the same information while not reading even more strangely. What would you suggest here? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

      • I just find it weird to merge things when then you are going to repeat information, that's all. One would think that the purpose of merging them and not having one row for each of them would be not to duplicate the information. Alavense (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• You have "cat" linked twice in the same row. It's the same with "crocodile" in the next section and so on and so forth, so please review these.
  • Fixed the bulk of the dupe links. Let me know if I missed any. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• gatito is a colloquial word for "little cat", not necessary a kitten.
  • Thank you for the Sprigatito shout-out since it turns out that one was actually using an incorrect source that I had missed. I've removed the information, primarily since I'm unable to find a citation describing the naming information at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Fighting type should be hyphened for consistency's sake.
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• There are lots of instances of "who" being used to refer to a Pokémon. Is that okay? Or should it be "which"?
  • Changed to which. That makes more sense consistently given we're discussing species here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• consisting of a pair of Pokemon - It should be "Pokémon".
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Tadbulb is a Pokémon - What else could it be? There are also a few is a species of Pokémon, which are equally obvious.
  • Some specific entries have such a small amount of coverage that their exact identities and origins are not discussed in any major sources. A few had descriptions in sources such as Screen Rant and Game Rant, but I elected not to include them due to quality concerns normally brought up during Featured Content assessments. As a result, certain entries being described as "X is a Pokémon" are things I cannot really avoid due to these ones in particular just having less discussion than other entries on the list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• the fictional, in-universe streamer, Iono should be the fictional, in-universe streamer Iono
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Gym Leader - There's only one mention to it, with no explanation or link whatsoever.
  • I removed the Gym Leader mention. Admittedly could probably clarify that properly if needed but it really isn't too important for understanding here, since the focus is more on the promo than Iono's character. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• ball of a mud or "ball of mud"?
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Corviknight- a large, metallic bird-like Pokémon- - Those should be {{mdash}}es.
  • Fixed mdashes in all places that needed them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Wiglett has been commented on for its phallic appearance by both fans and critics.[104][105][106][107][108] - Please merge all those references.
  • I admittedly have no idea how to do that. What template should be used for something like that? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    • See WP:BUNDLING. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

      I have been trying for eons but genuinely cannot figure this out, and the directions in the instruction article are very confusing. I apologize for my technological illiteracy, but could you please clarify how this works? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

      @Pokelego999: I've done a drive-by reference bundle, so this issue is fixed. In the future, you can bundle references by playing them within a {{efn}} footnote that reads like Supported by multiple sources:[1][2][etc], with the <ref> tags placed inside the efn. If you use Visual Editor, you will have to enter the {{efn}} menu thing and then manually insert the references in there as they'd be formatted in the Source Editor. (But you can always generate them in VE and then switch to Source and just encase them in the efn.) DecafPotato (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

      @DecafPotato Thank you for the help and the detailed response! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Pokémon, that evolves from Wiglett - No need for that comma.
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Flamigo's design was criticized by fans - Why? And why did it then garner popularity?
  • Clarified information in this section. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Why is Cetitan linked?
  • No idea, good catch. Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• incredibly cold - I think "very cold" is more encyclopedic?
  • Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Kingambit, is - No need for that comma.
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• are Paradox Pokémon- Pokémon who hail from different time periods than normal Pokémon- - {{mdash}}es, please.
  • Fixed per above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaving the table for now, given that there are many things that I've pointed out and that would need work. Going into the "Reception" section now:

• Noting these traits, she felt that it allowed - Maybe "they"?
• Several Pokemon, such as Annihilape, Palafin, Flutter Mane, Iron Bundle, and Houndstone ended up - A comma is missing before "ended up".
  • Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• There are some curly apostrophes.
  • I'm a bit confused about the curly apostrophes, since the only ones used in Reception are in direct quotes from cited sources, and not used in the actual prose. Could you clarify on this? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    • They’re barely even creatures, they’re just - Should those apostrophes be curly? I really don't know, I was just pointing out in case it was a mistake. Alavense (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

      They're direct quotations from the original author, so I'm not sure if that's supposed to be changed or not. I only left them because these are the author's words, and thus I wished to leave them as unedited as possible. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

      • Okay, then. No problem, I guess. Alavense (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• the simplicity of the generations' designs - It's only one generation, isn't it?
  • Typo. Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Several designs have also been noted as being popular with the LGBTQ+ community. Many described Quaquaval as being popular with LGBTQ+ fans - Both sentences could be merged.
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel the list still needs a bit of doing up, but I won't oppose. Let's see if you can start working on these comments and how the list stands after that. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Alavense: Let me know if anything else needs fixing, and if anything else needs to be done. Let me know if anything above needs clarifying as well. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As a note, given that there cannot be copyright-free images of the pokemon, it would be very hard to justify the inclusion of dozens of them in this list, unfortunately. --PresN 22:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the suggestion of including the images. My bad. I've replied to your replies with some clarifications. I will then carry on reading the table when I get more time. Thanks and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense responded to the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

A few more:

• the chest form, and a second "Roaming Form" - No need for that comma.
• the beads are said to be filled the envy of those which wanted to have them - Is something missing there?
• and Miraidon the future - and Miraidon from the future
• with the -don suffix in reference to a frequent suffix for dinosaurs - Maybe something simpler like with the -don suffix being a reference to dinosaurs?
• as part of an event, where players could battle - No need for that comma.

That's what I got. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense addressed your concerns on the above comments. On the subject of the repetition in the Paradoxes section, the main reason I made them standard is because there's no real way to phrase it concisely without making it more messy or repetitive. I could potentially shorten it down to something like "Iron Treads is a Pokémon resembling Donphan..." or something like that, but the repetition would still remain. Unmerging the cells would not fix the problem, as it would still remain regardless, but only with the added point that these Pokémon that are normally grouped together are now separated. If you feel there's a better way to write this, let me know, but I feel as of right now this is the most consistent and straightforward way to cover the information for readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick responses. I think the list is comprehensive and meets the criteria. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

SnowFire

Note: Pokelego999 & I discussed an informal trade of reviews, to the extent it matters.

Usual disclaimer goes here that these are suggestions, not demands, so feel free to push back. Focusing more on the lede & Reception at the moment rather than the individual Pokemon.

• Optional nit: If you know someone who speaks Japanese, it might be useful to add the trans-title parameter to your citations to JP sources. That said, this is optional; it's better to keep it as is than insert potentially inaccurate translations from raw Google Translate.
  • I unfortunately don't know anyone who does. If I did, I would probably run this by them, but I've left the titles in their original Japanese titles for now to play it safe with the naming. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Incredibly basic question: not demanding an entire naming scheme be overturned, but... is using roman numerals the most common way to refer to generations? I've seen plenty of "Gen1", "Gen4", etc. casually with Arabic numerals. Just something to think about - I rather doubt that we'll be calling them Generation XIV Pokemon in 2034.
  • Admittedly not sure. This is something a bit out of my scope and outside of the scope of this discussion, since admittedly I don't know how this naming scheme came about, and I myself never coined the article title. I'd assume it's for formality reasons or something along those lines, but admittedly a question about the title would require a reformat on the other eight lists, which is a discussion I believe doesn't fall under the scope of this FLC. Apologies that I can't really give a concrete answer on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• The first Pokémon of the generation were revealed on 27 February 2022 Is this really lede-worthy information? I can see the release date of S&V being potentially of interest, but the date of the "preview" doesn't seem as interesting to me. If kept, I'd at least include the release date of S&V too (unless there was a Gen9 poke available before S&V somehow).
  • It's relatively relevant given it's the first day the main subjects of the list were confirmed. Either way, I've added SV's release date, which should help with informing readers better. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture and use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon. Is this a line from elsewhere? I'm personally not a fan. Maybe split it up? "In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture Pokémon. The Trainer then uses their creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon."
  • It's a copypasta that is used to introduce basic information about the franchise to those unfamiliar with the series in a short, concise manner. It's been used in every other species article on this website. I feel personally the sentence is fine as one, as the run-on isn't too terribly confusing, but I can definitely split it here if you feel it's necessary and bring this up in a discussion at WT:VGCHAR. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Dropped a question off at VGCHAR, but won't let that block this, happy to support even if I don't convince anyone there.
• They hail from the distant past, and thus are sometimes dubbed "Ancient Pokémon." Maybe cut "thus"? Names don't have to make sense. Same with the "thus" for Future Pokemon.
  • Cut. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Fans of the series responded negatively to many designs from the games when the games were leaked prior to release. I'm not sure that the source is strong enough for such a sweeping claim. While I'm sure the redundancy brigade might be annoyed, perhaps "some fans" to emphasize that this story was just "people griping on Twitter / Reddit" (aka day ending in 'y') rather than a widespread fan revolt? Alternatively, if it really was so widespread, then add more / better sources.
  • Clarified with "some fans" to hopefully better illustrate the source's content. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• She highlighted several designs, such as - I'm not sure "highlighted" is the right term here. "singled out" or "was disappointed in" perhaps?
  • Highlighted is meant to refer to positively received designs, in this case. The wording's unclear in any case, so I've clarified it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• should have been held to a higher standard. Not a fan of this. They can be held to whatever standard the reviewer likes. What is really meant here is whether the designs met the high standards for Pokemon which she apparently doesn't think they did - some rephrasing to get that idea across might be better.
  • I've tried re-wording this; let me know your thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • It definitely looks better now. I would consider cutting "and felt the generation was not the worst in terms of designs" - we're already saying "doesn't meet the standard of earlier gens", not "she hated everything", so I think we've already hinted that the mood is more like "disappointment" than "dislike."
      • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
        • Sorry, to be clear, I was suggesting cutting "felt the generation was not the worst in terms of designs, but keeping "she felt that the majority of the designs in the game were not up to the standard of other entries in the series". Still up to you.
• Ana Diaz, writing for Polygon believed that many species, most notably Flamigo, Palafin, and Maushold, had unique and powerful traits. Noting these traits, she felt that they allowed for a more fun environment for players overall. While Polygon is a good source usually, I'm not convinced this is a good source. First of all, all she's really saying is "some Pokemon seem strong competitively" which is basically too boring to point out. Second, this was published a month after release, and she writes "it's looking like we will get a fun and varied competitive scene for Scarlet and Violet." In other words, maybe the competitive scene will be fun, which is a little different from "allowed for a more fun environment for players overall". Are there any sources written later that are a little surer on whether Gen9 competitive Pokemon genuinely was better? And if we keep this source, we should honor the slant in it - that Diaz writes that some Gen9 Pokemon had fun and cool in-gameplay abilities she hoped would be fun in competitive. (THe previous paragraph was on art design, so maybe best to clue a little harder we're talking about gameplay now.)
  • There's nothing from what I can see. A few sources from TheGamer discuss competitive but not to the extent Polygon does. I've reworded this a bit per your suggestions, since I do feel the competitive stuff is at least worth bringing up in some capacity given how many individual subjects got some coverage for this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm just saying I think we need to mention competitive here too. Diaz is specifically saying she thinks/hopes competitive will be fun thanks to these Pokemon, but the current phrasing just says " more fun environment for players overall." But plenty of Pokemon players don't bother with competitive. (it might also be worth adding the word "gameplay" in front of traits somewhere?)
      • I've tried rephrasing this per your suggestions. Let me know if more is needed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• particularly powerful in popular competitive formats among fans, leading to their bans in those formats. Okay, explaining Smogon in half a sentence for a general audience is hard, I get that. But strictly speaking, being booted to Ubers isn't quite the same thing as being banned. (And yes, I know the sources say "banned", but meh.) Perhaps: "proved to be problematically strong in the single battle format, where each trainer has 6 Pokemon and sends them out one at a time. They were banned from the most popular fan format and became only usable in less restricted ones." (Even then, I'm a little concerned about portraying this as potentially unusual - the idea that some Pokemon from each gen end up in Ubers is not surprising nor scandalous. But oh well.)
  • The issue was a bit more reported on and more common than it was in prior generations, hence why it got covered more in-depth by sources and in this article. Otherwise I'd have kept it to just the individual cells. Either way, I've tried re-wording per your suggestions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Still not entirely happy here... "particularly powerful in popular competitive formats among fans" can be read a bit wrong. VGC is its own format, after all, and it's played by "fans", so a very easy misreading is to assume that these Pokes are banned in "official" formats played by fans, which isn't quite true. Smogon OU is closer to a "fan format". I just think we may have to be a little more direct here than "standard competitive formats" - I think the word "Smogon University" and "single battle" (or "singles") should be somewhere here.
      • I've tried re-wording this to be a bit more clear; I definitely see the confusion with the wording that I hadn't noticed before. I've tried placing more emphasis on the fact these are fan-run formats, though I'm opposed to name-dropping Smogon since I worry it may be confusing for readers unfamiliar with these formats. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Joe Parlock of TheGamer noted the sleek designs - See MOS:SAID. This is an opinion, not a factual-ish "note", so perhaps "praised" rather than "noted".
  • I personally disagree with this interpretation of SAID for a variety of reasons, but I won't get into that here. I tried to remove the uses of "noted" early on so as to not have to deal with this problem, but I guess I must have missed this one. Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• build Paldea's culture, stating that it was More MOS:SAID. "writing" that it was, perhaps?
  • I'm a bit confused what the issue is here, given that SAID says that "stating" is fine for this kind of thing. Could you clarify here? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my bad this one - carry on!
• Writer Kate Gray described the number of "weirder" designs present in the generation - This needs a full rephrasing. The source is "What's The Best New Pokémon Design In Pokémon Scarlet & Violet?" So she's not just "describing" a number here. Perhaps "Kate Gray praised the "weirder" designs of Generation IX, including..."
  • Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• while writer Alan Hagues stated that the effectiveness of the simplicity of the generation's designs as being something that "wins out in some ways. I don't think this thought is that connected to Gray's ideas, so maybe two separate sentences here. If kept as one, again, this is Hagues talking about what he likes, so perhaps "Hagues thought that many of the middle and final evolutions were cool, and that the generation overall had simple yet strong art design?" Up to you.
  • Elected to use your re-wording here, as I feel it's best to keep this one source connected. This source was a pain to format, so I appreciate the help with making this a bit clearer. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • It's definitely much better now.
• But also while we're here, I kinda thought that the first paragraph was on art design, and the second paragraph was on gameplay design? Why are we reverting to art design again? Am I missing something, or should these sentences be moved to the above paragraph? (or was the split supposed to be negative vs. positive? Not sure that's a good idea if so, though.)
  • Admittedly I wasn't sure where best in Reception to put the gameplay information given most of the coverage is on design reception. I'm still not, to be frank. Would you prefer it to be shifted after the discussion on design, or somewhere else? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • It's up to you. I'm personally a fan of "theming" paragraphs, but it isn't always feasible. It's an optional thought to consider, but it's non-actionable and optional.
    • I've shifted comp info after the second paragraph's content; I feel this information is much easier to understand without shifting straight back into design info. Let me know if you feel this can be improved upon, though. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Numerous individual designs have been highlighted by critics, Same problem as above. Highlighted as what? From context, yes I can tell it's "for praise", but I'd make this a little clearer.
  • Clarified. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Overall, looks good. SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• @SnowFire: replied to your above comments. Let me know what else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking through some of the individual Pokemon write-ups... mostly looks fine, with the usual disclaimer that some of the sourcing is to borderline sites, but such is modern video games media. Alas.

• A notable Koraidon or Miraidon, depending on the player's version, serves as a major supporting character in-game ... Another notable ... - Maybe "specific" rather than "notable"? I presume it's not that said Koraidon is famous in-setting or the like.
  • Ah, good catch. I meant "notable" in the same vein as specific, but entirely missed the connotations. Issue should be fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Evil Tea Pokemon: is a different species without biological association to Sinistea At risk of getting into POKEMON BIOLOGY, the source says "they are completely separate Pokémon". I'm not sure that's quite synonymous with "without biological association." Like, platypuses are weird and separate species, but they still have some biological association to other mammals, for a real-life example.
  • In-universe they're still technically all under the "Pokémon" species, but biological association within that category is un-confirmed or incredibly unclear even in series material. In this case, though, official promo itself specifically states that Poltchageist is biologically unassociated with Sinistea, which is what the articles in question are citing. I can't check sourcing right now since I'm out, but if this is an issue with the source not specifying this is from official promo, I can see if I can find a source that specifies this. Either way, given this is actual lore information on the species and not just conjecture, I don't see a need to change this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Terpagos: It is believed to have a special tie to the Terastal phenomenon This seems a little weak. It's funny because you were saying a similar thing over in the Second Temple timeline on some "probablies", but fictional beings can have canonical answers that historical mysteries don't always have - I get the impression it clearly does have such a special tie from The Gamer article. I didn't play S&V though. If The Gamer source isn't great and is exaggerating and the current phrasing is closer to in-game, then the current wording is fine, but maybe just directly say it has a special tie if the source is accurate, no need for "believed". SnowFire (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Again, my issue was more with wording than anything, but in this case, this is a typo on my part. This is meant to specify "in-universe," since while the out of universe ties are obvious, my initial search found nothing to confirm that given how surprisingly scarce sourcing lore information like that was given how much of a plot role this guy had. Changed this to specify but let me know on this one. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire: finished looking over your second round of comments. Let me know what else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. I made a few minor changes myself at the end, but feel free to revert or adjust them.
• Support. SnowFire (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  @SnowFire My apologies on the miscommunication of your comments. Thank you for the help! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:26, 25 September 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, 25 September 2024 (UTC) [6].

---

1996 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) and Birdienest81

This is both mine and Birdienest81's fourth nomination related to the Olympic medal tables, though we both each did three separately before collaborating on this list (making this #7 that we've worked to help promote cumulatively). We believe it meets all the relevant criteria and we're hoping for this to be #16 (of 30) for the Summer Olympics medal tables to reach featured list status. We will do our best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns and feedback that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Amy Van Dyken (pictured) won four gold medals at the 1996 Summer Olympics, the most of any competing athlete - Is it really necessary to say that she's pictured? I mean, there's only one person there, I think it's pretty obvious.
• with 53 of them won at least one gold medal - Maybe "winning"?
• Would it be worth explaining in a note why those editions were boycotted?
• In addition, she also - Isn't it a bit redundant to say both "In addition" and "also"?
• Maybe link to Great Britain at the 1996 Summer Olympics in the mention on Steve Redgrave's image's caption?

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: I've implemented all of your suggestions except for one. I could try to explain in a note about the boycotts that happened, but I'm not sure if it properly does it justice. In short, I'm not sure it's a great idea to try to shove so much information into a note and speak about the segregation/apartheid issues that led to a boycott or the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott because I don't think it does it justice or adds much to the article, since it would end up being a very long note for a singular sentence. However, if you feel strongly, I'll consider it further. There's also List of Olympic Games boycotts. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. I wouldn't expect an in-depth explanation of what the boycotts were about and how they unfolded, but I think it would be useful to have a note saying the Olympics were boycotted for several reasons from 1976 through to 1988 and a link to that list. Don't you think? Thank you for addressing the other points. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: I had been giving it some thought, and I think I was overthinking how to properly do a note for this. I've added a wikilink that I hope addresses your comment appropriately. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It works for me. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Agree with all of the above, plus.....
• "Athletes from the host nation of United States" => "Athletes from the host nation of the United States"....?
• "Additionally, in the men's horitzontal bars" - penultimate word is spelt incorrectly
• Images beside the table should have their size set to "upright"
• Is it relevant to this article that Shannon Miller had also won medals four years earlier (as mentioned in her image caption)? Other people pictured also had great achievements outwith these games e.g. Steve Redgrave is the only man in history to have won gold medals at five different Olympic Games in an endurance sport, but you don't mention it in their image captions.....
• "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals at the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." => "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals in the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events."
• That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  • "Athletes from the host nation of United States" -> "Athletes from the host nation of the United States"....? – Fixed
  • "Additionally, in the men's horitzontal bars" - penultimate word is spelt incorrectly – Fixed
  • Images beside the table should have their size set to "upright" – Set with a factor of 1.3, hope that's appropriate.
  • Is it relevant to this article that Shannon Miller had also won medals four years earlier (as mentioned in her image caption)? Other people pictured also had great achievements outwith these games e.g. Steve Redgrave is the only man in history to have won gold medals at five different Olympic Games in an endurance sport, but you don't mention it in their image captions..... – I could use a bit more feedback on this one, but I included it because of the medals in her hand in the image. I felt it that she won all of those medals at the 1996 games based on the image and I wanted to clarify
  • "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals at the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." -> "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals in the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." – Fixed

  As always, thanks for the feedback Chris. A little sloppier than I usually like it to be, so I'll be more careful with my next nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: I'm pretty certain the table requires an inline citation at the top to verify the content in it EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm embarrassed that I missed that @EnthusiastWorld37, so I very much appreciate you pointing this out to me. I'm quite disappointed with myself for the number of things called out that I shouldn't have missed, but it is what it is. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Have now conducted a fuller review of the list and I believe it meets the criteria and so I Support its promotion EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Matthewrb

• The short description for the article is currently "Award" - I might recommend none for this article since the title is descriptive.
• The photo of Amy Van Dyken needs alt text per MOS:ALT.
• I'm not sure why the last opening paragraph ends with ",." - is there a phrase missing there?
• I did a spot check of the metal numbers in the table and saw no problems.
• I also did a spot check of the citations and saw no concerns.

If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Apollo missions FLC down below. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 21:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Matthewrb, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Support, well done! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 01:26, 25 September 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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Vegas Golden Knights players

Nominator(s): The Kip ^(contribs) 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuing my semi-steady FL-izing of VGK lists. Somewhat based off of the current state of FL List of Florida Panthers players (which badly needs to be updated anyways - I've got that on the docket for the next few days), I've dramatically expanded/sourced the prose of the lead, and made some accessibility edits related to the tables. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• Image caption isn't a complete sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
• "23 skaters and four goaltenders" => "The names of 23 skaters and four goaltenders" (avoids starting the sentence with a digit and is also technically more accurate)
• "the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy as the NHL's most gentlemanly player" - no issues with this but it really amused me - it reads like something I would expect in cricket or polo rather than ice hockey :-)
• Some of the image captions contain factoids which I don't believe are sourced e.g. "Adin Hill started 14 playoff games in the 2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs, including all five games of Vegas' Finals victory" - the table only shows that he played 19 playoff games in total, not that he started 14 in 2023 specifically....
• That's all I got, great work :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Sourced the Hill and Hague captions, as well as the Fleury 46-game bit - the rest are all either cited in the lead, or from HockeyRef/NHL/HockeyDB/etc via the tables themselves (WP:CALC and all that). Hope that fixes everything! The Kip ^(contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• 51 of these skaters and five goaltenders have appeared in at least one playoff game - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• The names of 23 skaters and four goaltenders were engraved on the Stanley Cup following the Golden Knights' Finals victory in 2023, with the latter total making the Golden Knights the first team in NHL history to engrave four goaltenders on the Cup - Ditto.
• Adin Hill started 14 playoff games in the 2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs, including all five games - Ditto.
• To make the use of the Oxford comma consistent, add a comma after the parenthesis in (including overtime and shootout losses) and.
• Out of ignorance: shouldn't in on and off-ice be in on- and off-ice?
• The Note in note a) is unnecessary.
• The way the images are displayed at the beginning of each section is a bit weird on PC view. Given that the width of the table doesn't allow for them, wouldn't it be better to lay them out in a different way? I was thinking about something like this.

That's what I saw, The Kip. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense Corrected the various grammar/copy-edit things. As for the photos - I'd prefer not to if possible, so as to keep consistency with most other hockey lists that display the images at the side. To be quite honest I'm not the biggest fan of the gallery view - it appears a bit awkward when most of the images are larger vertically than horizontally, while all but one of the images in the linked FL are horizontally larger. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the way it is displayed now, with that big hole at the beginning of each section, but I guess it's a matter of personal taste. Nice work on the list. Support. Alavense (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 verification check

• "they play in the Pacific Division of the Western Conference in the National Hockey League (NHL)" - Need a source here as the 2016 NHL sources were before they started to play. These two sources could be moved up to verify "Founded ahead of the 2017–18 season as an expansion team"
• "The franchise plays its home games at T-Mobile Arena on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada" - Skyrisecities doesn't look like a reliable source. Also needs a current source to show that this is correct.
• "With the Golden Knights having reached the Stanley Cup playoffs six times in seven seasons as a franchise" - QuantHockey doesn't mention this. Extra source needed.
• "as well as playoff goals, assists, and points;" - Need a specific link from NHL Records that shows Marchessault's playoff records such as this.
• "William Karlsson is the active leader in the aforementioned regular-season categories as well as playoff points, with Mark Stone the active leader in playoff goals and Shea Theodore in playoff assists. Karlsson and Marchessault share the record for playoff games played" - Need specific sources to show that Karlsson and Thedore are active while showing they are the active leaders in these stats for the Golden Knights.
• "Brayden McNabb is the active and all-time leader in penalty minutes" - need an extra source that shows McNabb is active.
• "Ryan Reaves is the all-time leader in playoff penalty minutes, while Keegan Kolesar is the active leader." - Need specific links to show that Reaves is the all-time leader and Kolesar is the active leader.
• "Marc-Andre Fleury holds all regular-season and playoff records" - This isn't true. For instance Hill leads in playoff save percentage, so "all" must be removed.
• Secondly, Fleury needs a specific source that shows he leads in "games played, wins, losses (including overtime and shootout losses), and shutouts" for the playoffs.
• "Following the franchise's inaugural season" - Karlsson's award mentions that 2018 was the first season for the Golden Knights, not Engelland. This sentence order can be switched as they are from the same date.
• "Conn Smythe Trophy as the most valuable player of the 2023 Stanley Cup playoffs." - Extra source needed here as The Athletic doesn't mention the trophy is a MVP award.
• "Mark Stone has served as the Golden Knights' first and thus far only captain" - Extra source needed to show Stone remains as the only captain by 2024.

Going through point by point:

• This feels unnecessary - it's one of those things that simply "is," or could even be considered common knowledge, and hasn't changed since 2016.
• I've replaced the Skyrise Cities source with one from the Las Vegas Sun (no relation to the Sun tabloids), but w/r/t them still playing there - again, another thing that feels unnecessary to need a citation for, as it's another thing that simply "is," or could also be considered common knowledge.
• Cited from HockeyRef. Seasons table is located on main franchise page.
• With Marchessault, I was actually wrong on playoff assists (that's Reilly Smith), but I cited to the specific NHL.com record tables.
• With the Karlsson/Theodore/Stone active leaders bits, I've cited QuantHockey, which bolds active players w/ VGK on the list - it still has Marchessault bolded, but I assume that will be resolved shortly, and even if not, the sentence prior already establishes that he's no longer on the team.
• With regards to McNabb as the active leader, added QuantHockey to endorse active status.
• With regards to Reaves/Kolesar, added NHL records ref for the former and QuantHockey for the latter. Again, I expect Marchessault and Carrier will be un-bolded shortly, and even then, it feels common-knowledge enough that they were part of VGK's mass departures this year.
• Changed "all" to "most."
• Replaced one source with four. This is another spot I was concerned may become citation overkill, so much so that I added an EFN to contain the refs. There's no specific page for most losses, but it's easily verified on the most wins table, which also has losses and shutouts.
• Swapped the order.
• Replaced the Athletic source, but again, also feels like common knowledge in the sports world that the Conn Smythe is the NHL playoffs MVP.
• Stone remaining the captain is another thing that simply "is"/is common knowledge. Not really sure what I can do there. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Goaltenders table

• Ferguson's GAA is 6.50, not 6.67.
• Lagace's SV% is .868, not .871.
• I suggest adding the 2024-25 roster to show Hill is the only goaltender that's still on the team. Hockey Reference uses 2024 instead of present. Therefore, it can be confusing to determine who left in 2024 (such as Thompson) and who stayed.
• Neither HockeyDB or Hockey-Reference list the playoff stats in the team page (they're in the individual player/goalie pages). Found this source that lists them all.
• With that source, Lester's SV% for the playoffs is .911, not .920.
• I think the source that lists all of the Golden Knight players that won the Stanley Cup should be reused in the Notes column since the prose in the lead does not specifically name them.

Again point by point-ish:

• Fixed the first two according to HockeyRef.
• Doesn't really matter, as the list isn't updated until after each season anyways, by which point it'll be clear who stuck around by which guys HockeyRef lists as 2024 and which it lists as 2025 and beyond. Green is always most recent completed season anyways, which'll be 2023-24 until about 10 months from now.
• Added EliteProspects link to both tables.
• Corrected Lehner's SV%
• Going to respectfully disagree - the prose mentions 23 skaters and four goaltenders, and the sources both contain every name - I don't think the table should be cluttered by having the same redundant citation appear 27 times. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Skaters table

• A source can be reused here to show which of the players are on the 2024-25 roster.
• Similarly, a source like Elite Prospects needs to be added for the playoffs stats.
• I also suggest reusing a source in the Notes column to show which of the skaters won the Stanley Cup.
• HockeyDB says Jonathan Marchessault was a right winger, not center.
• Paul Stastny was born in Canada.
• Oscar Lindberg was left winger.
• Jake Leschyshyn was born in the USA.
• Luca Sbisa is Italian.
• Peyton Krebs played from 2020-2022.
• Mason Morelli was a left winger.
• Tomas Jurco was a left winger.
• Dylan Sikura was a right winger.
• Vadim Shipachyov was center.
• Gage Quinney was center.
• Sven Baertschi was left winger.

Oppose for now based on the combined large amount of verification issues. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 I’ll handle the rest a bit later, but w/r/t Stastny/Sbisa/Leschyshyn - nationality in hockey is based upon citizenship and who they’ve represented internationally, not birth country. Sbisa’s played for the Swiss national team, Stastny the U.S. one, and Leschyshyn played for a Canada team at the U17s - they all hold citizenship(s) there as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case, sources would be needed to verify that as HockeyDB only gives country of birth. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, individual verification of that and a few other things on the list would, at least in my opinion, be veering into citation overkill. Some of the items on the list are things that just simply “are,” and aren’t contentious or likely to be challenged. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

To me, the nationalities wouldn't be something that passes Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Featured List List of Philadelphia Flyers players explains why Knuble is listed as American and not Canadian, while listing a citation in the note. The same could be done here by adding references into a note for Stastny, Leschyshyn and Sbisa. Otherwise, the nationalities column could be switch to country of birth instead and won't require any extra sources. What else do you believe do not need citations? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I'll add a similar note to the table for their nationalities - switching it to the country of birth would be misleading/inaccurate to readers. As for the other things I have qualms about citations on, I'll go section by section above. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Point by point:

• Doesn't really matter, per above.
• Added already.
• Disagree, per above.
• Positions are a finicky thing in hockey, and various sites agree or disagree. W/r/t those mentioned:

• NHL.com and HockeyRef list Marchessault as a C, so I'll keep it that way. I'm generally inclined to go with whatever NHL.com says unless it's alone as the minority.
• NHL.com agrees that Lindberg was a LW, HR says C. EliteProspects has it both ways and lists him as a C/LW - I'll change him to LW given that's the majority.
• NHL.com agrees that Morelli is an LW, and HR just lists him as "forward." EP has C, but LW appears to be the majority.
• NHL.com lists Jurco as an RW, as does HR. EP says LW/RW, so I'm going with RW.
• NHL.com says Sikura was an RW, HR says C, and EP says LW/RW. I'll go with RW.
• NHL.com and EP list Shipachyov as a C, HR says LW, so I'll swap to C.
• NHL.com says Quinney was a C; EP says C/LW, while HR just says forward. I'll swap to C.
• All four say Baertschi was an LW - not really sure how he ended up entered as a C.

• We already discussed the nationalities issue.
• Krebs bit fixed. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Leftover points

@The Kip: Here's a summary of what's leftover that I believe needs to be done:

• Keefer 2016 Las Vegas Sun source does not say the location of T-Mobile Arena. Found this 2023 source which could be used instead as it has both the Strip and Paradise. Otherwise, a current source such as this could be used instead while removing The Strip and Paradise.
• Need this QuantHockey regular season source next to the QuantHockey playoffs source to verify Karlsson's records.
• Shea Theodore is the record holder for regular season assists, not Karlsson per QuantHockey.
• With Mark Stone, you could use this source instead that shows he's been the only captain.
• For the current roster for goaltenders & skaters, you could use "2024" instead of "present" if you don't want to use the 2024 roster. All three sources (HockeyDB, Hockey-Reference, Elite Prospects) use that format and it won't require extra sourcing.
• The Stanley Cup list of names could be reused twice, (once each next to the word Notes in the Goaltenders and Skaters tables). I agree using it 27 times isn't needed.
• For Jurco, Marchessault, and Sikura's positions, you could cite their NHL profiles. The other 5 are fine.
• Thank you for adding a note for Sbisa being Swiss. You could also add Leschyshyn and Stastny as well as they are the only ones that don't match their place of birth. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• I added the SN source, though I really feel like the Strip/Paradise is the sort of geographic general knowledge that could be covered by this higher-quality source instead, rather than having to individually cite both. Again, I don't think the location is contentious or likely to be challenged.
• Done.
• Fixed/updated.
• Used an NHL records page instead that lists him as captain from 2021-present.
• I still disagree that the 2024/present thing is an issue. We don't need to overload readers with citation overkill when it'd be fairly common knowledge to the majority of readers who reach this page that certain players are or aren't still on the team. If they're unsure, despite the 2024/present being listed in the table, they can click through to the player's wikilink, which contains said info. Listing current players as 20XX-2024 is misleading. And again - the table won't be updated until after next season anyways at which point HockeyRef/QuantHockey/etc will make it clear that some guys stayed beyond 2024 and some didn't.
• I also still disagree here - having it linked in the prose is enough, same for the other awards. They're also all listed and cited at the linked Finals page.
• And here. Citing individual positions is overkill - no other NHL FL has it, or really sports FLs in general. I might just list Sikura as an forward, given the disagreements from sources.
• Sbisa is merely the example the note uses - the general content of it applies to Stastny/Leschyshyn, same as the Flyers FL.

The Kip ^(contribs) 21:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the positions, it's understandable that sources disagree which winger position Sikura and Jurco played. However, the cited sources (HockeyDB and Elite Prospects) says Marchessault was a winger. It might be easier to add a note with source for Marchessault only explaining that NHL.com and/or HockeyRef says he's a center. Taking a look at the Flyers FL, I'm fine with following the format of citing the Stanley Cup winners once and just adding a note for the nationalities contradiction. I do see that the Flyers FL uses present instead of 2024. However, as you feel that it's not necessarily, I'll leave it be. Once the clarification for Marchessault is addressed, you're good to go. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 I've added a note on Marchessault - let me know if it works. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Support MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Refs with "NFL.com" should be changed to National Hockey League (and wikilinked). There's quite a few source you have from the NHL added already and this would be better for consistency.
• Ref 27 uses the website field instead of publisher for NHL, which is acceptable based on the Template:Cite web, but consistency and all
• Date formatting in references is inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|September 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description
• Ref 38 – We typically remove the site name from reference titles, so exclude " – EliteProspects"
• Was the goal originally to only link the first occurrence in some instances? I ask because it looks kind of like it, but I'm seeing a lot of inconsistences in the linking of publishers/websites in the references
• Ref 7 and general reference 1 – Remove ".com", since the article is at HockeyDB
• Could probably do with a run of iabot
• Refs 1, 2, 10, 23, 24, and 27 are actually links that immediately redirect, so they should be updated to the direct links

That's what I've got for now. Good stuff Kip, as always! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Sorry for the delay - life's caught up with me lately! Should have these fully addressed by tomorrow or Monday. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem, just ping me when you do. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh should be all taken care of. Wikilinked all websites/publishers/works, added the mdy dates template, and ran IABot, among the other things. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh not to bother - everything good with the updates? The Kip ^(contribs) 17:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely appropriate to bother in this case @The Kip. I'm pleased with it all, so I support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 23 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Seattle Kraken players

Nominator: XR228 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yet another Seattle Kraken FL nom—this time it's their players. This should meet all the criteria. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead seems a tiny bit thin. Maybe you could add some info about the player with most games, most goals, etc.....?
• "his captaincy starting in 2021, and ending 6 months later." - that comma is not needed
• Not sure this is relevant to this article, but you say that a captain is the only one who can talk to the ref, yet the Kraken have only had a captain for six months out of their entire history? Does this mean that for the rest of the time nobody could talk to the ref?
• Is the dagger really needed in the key given that it literally isn't used at all in the tables?
• Beniers being the first ever draft choice need sourcing
• Ref 5, the only one against the skaters table, does not support Beniers being a Calder Trophy winner
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• 59 players, 4 goaltenders and 55 skaters (forwards and defenseman), have played - Lose that last comma.
• In the caption of the first picture, Kraken is mentioned thrice. The second one, for example, could be replaced with a the team or something similar.
• Captains are required to wear the letter "C" on their uniform for identification, which is 3 inches (7.6 cm) in height - I don't think that sentence is clear enough.
• ending 6 months later - MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words".
• There's something wrong with Matty Beniers's caption.
• Nat should be Nat. and Pos should be Pos.. Besides, please consider using {{abbr}} for those and also for the others.
• There are no notes in the first table, so you can get rid of that empty column.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: I have made most of the changes. Could you let me know what is wrong with Matty Beniers's caption? Thanks XR228 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, XR228. There's a full stop followed by a word in lowercase. That needs fixing. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: I have fixed it. XR228 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 verification check

Prose

• Talk page is tagged with a synthesis issue and should be resolved.
• "members of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference" - need an extra source next to HockeyDB to show they are members of the Western Conference.
• "Since their arrival in 2021, 59 players, 4 goaltenders and 55 skaters (forwards and defenseman) have played in a Kraken jersey for at least one regular season game." - Needs a source here such as the HockeyDB roster list.
• The Captain quote should start with "the privilege of discussing with the Referee" (capital R included).
• "being 3 inches (7.6 cm)" - NHL says "approximately" not exactly.
• There's an updated version of the NHL rules from 2023 in regards to Captain if you wish to use it.
• "starting in 2021 and ending six months later" - "starting in October 2021 and ending five months later" (as Giordano held captaincy until March 2022).
• "As the Kraken currently do not have a captain, they are allowed to name four alternate captains" - Condor 2021 source isn't needed here as it was already established that Giordano was captain. However, this sentence need an extra source next to Lukan 2022 source that shows the four alternative captains are still the case in 2024.
• The Career Most points for the Kraken is referenced three times and should be once instead.
• Most career goals for the Kraken is at a different link.
• Most career assists for the Kraken is at this link.

Goaltenders table

• This table needs extra source(s) as the majority of the regular season stats and all of the playoff stats are not included in HockeyDB. Only stat mentioned there is the games played.

Skaters table

• This table needs an extra source as the playoff stats are not mentioned at HockeyDB.
• Jared McCann was a left winger.
• André Burakovsky was born in Austria.
• Tye Kartye was a left winger.
• Joonas Donskoi played from 2021-2022.
• Marcus Johansson was a left winger.
• Derrick Pouliot had 2 PIM in the regular season.
• John Hayden was a center player.
• Alexander True played from 2021-2022.
• Logan Morrison was center.

Oppose for now. While there's a lot of verification issues, I'm mainly concerned with the synthesis tag and the majority of the goaltending stats being unreferenced. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I have made the changes. I do want to note that while Burakovsky was born in Austria, he played for the Swedish national team. I also see that a similar situation has happened on @The Kip's review of List of Vegas Golden Knights players, so I'll go ahead and add a note for that in the table. Also, if time permits, could you please take a look at my other nomination? Thanks. XR228 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look at the list and the sources you've added, only a few things remain:

• Martin Jones's regular season SV% was .886 according to Hockey-Reference..
• Logan Morrison should be center, not forward.
• The note about Burakovsky being Swedish should have a source.

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - Thank you for the quick changes. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC) [9].

---

1989–90 snooker world rankings

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

For regular readers of these lists, there will be little surprise that Steve Davis is at the summit. Two former World Champions, Alex Higgins and Cliff Thorburn, were banned for a couple of ranking tournaments each. As ever, many thanks in advance for improvement suggestions, and I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The list for the 1986–87 snooker season was the first to only take account of results over two seasons" - maybe mention that it also started to take into account other tournaments, otherwise some of the subsequent sentences don't really make sense
• "A proposal by Barry Hearn [....] made a proposal" - some of these words can be removed
• "after Higgind had been found guily in our of headbutting" - two words spelt wrong here and also "guilty in our".....?
• ""N" denotes that as a non-tournament, the player was not eligible to enter" => ""N" denotes that as a non-tournament player, the player was not eligible to enter"
• Graham Cripsey's row has a totally blank cell
• That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article. Please let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

I saw nothing wrong with either the prose or the tables. Being a bit persnickety, I'd suggest editing the {{sequence}} template at the end, so that it adjusts to the way seasons are now formatted in titles. Support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's a sensible change. Thank you, Alavense. Done for this article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Support — Have conducted a full review and cannot find anything to fault EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 23 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC) [10].

---

Timeline of the 2011 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

What the 2011 Pacific hurricane season lacked in tropical cyclones, it made up in the general strength of each one. The season produced eleven tropical storms, which is below average for the basin, but ten of them became hurricanes (!!) and even the eleventh peaked just under hurricane strength. Half of the hurricanes reached Category 4 intensity... and yet, the most devastating system of the season was too weak to be classified as a tropical storm. Tropical Depression Twelve-E generated torrential rainfall over southeastern Mexico and adjacent portions of Central America; widespread flooding and mudslides killed over 30 people. This is the eighth hurricane season timeline that I have nominated in an ongoing series. I hope the community enjoys reading, and I will respond to any questions or concerns as quickly as possible. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

• I'll take a look later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

I couldn't find anything to point out. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• 20 images are provided. They are appropriate, relevant and extensive, picturing all the major storms of the season, with ten showing the tracks of the storms and ten satellite images depicting the storms.
• All have ALT text for accessibility.
• The images of the tracks are created by Cyclonebiskit, Keith Edkins and Titoxd. They have relevant international PD tags.
• Adrian 2011-06-10 0000Z (cropped).png is provided by the US Navy and has a relevant PD tag.
• 12-E Oct 12 2011 1715Z.jpg, 8-E Aug 31 2011 1955Z.jpg, Beatriz 2011-06-21 0900Z (cropped).jpg, Hilary 2011-09-23 2000Z (cropped) (cropped).jpg, Hurricane Eugene Aug 3 2011 2110Z.jpg, Hurricane Jova Oct 10 2011 2045Z.jpg and Tropical Storm Fernanda Aug 17 2011 1955Z.jpg are provided by NASA, with relevant PD tags.
• Hurricane Dora July 21 1445Z.jpg and Hurricane Kenneth Nov 22 2011 1800Z (cropped).jpg are provided by and NOAA and have relevant PD tags.
• Three images are marked as cropped and are based on source images that also have valid PD tags.

I see no issues with the images. Pass. simongraham (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Can you do any better on ref 10? I might be misunderstanding this, but it looks like that's a website for a company formerly called Radio Levy or something?
• Ref 6 – EFE should be the agency, while Univision would be the work or website (like ref 5)
• Ref 25 – Remove the link to Atlanta, Georgia for consistency

That's all I've got. Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Josh for the feedback; I have addressed your comments. I found a ref from CENAPRED to replace ref 10, as well as ref 9 which had previously been used as a source for tourism losses (since the new source—which focuses on the effects of Mexican natural disasters—directly mentions risks to the tourism industry shortly before mentioning Jova). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 16 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC) [11].

---

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2019)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the fifth list in this series that I am nominating for FL. The format is similar to the previous lists that have been promoted in this series. -- EN-Jungwon 11:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Inkigayo implemented modifications for its measurements of albums" => "Inkigayo implemented modifications to its measurements of albums"
• "Chae-yeon was later replaced by actress Shin Eun-soo starting the February 17 broadcast." => "Chae-yeon was replaced by actress Shin Eun-soo starting with the February 17 broadcast."
• "Two other soloist had" => "Two other soloists had"
• "Singer Taeyeon had two singles rank number one on the chart in 2019;" - semi-colon at the end should be a colon (:)
• "The latter of which went on to" => "The latter of these went on to" (you can't use "which" in that way if you have started a new sentence)
• Itzy and Dalla Dalla are overlinked in the lead
• "making Itzy the artist" => "making Itzy the act" ("artist" can only be used to refer to soloists)
• "formed through the and fourth seasons" - is there a word missing there?
• "with their debut single "Flash" September 8" => "with their debut single "Flash" on September 8"
• That's it, I think! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude, all done. Thanks as always. -- EN-Jungwon 00:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You now have "X1, formed through the fourth seasons of Produce 101 gained" - were they formed through just the fourth season? If so, remove the s from seasons. Oh, and you need a comma after produce 101 to end the clause -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude, thanks for catching that. It has now been fixed. -- EN-Jungwon 23:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• "May 5" doesn't sort properly in the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 fixed. Should the song "%% (Eung Eung)" sort under "Eung Eung"? -- EN-Jungwon 01:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Should the song "%% (Eung Eung)" sort under "Eung Eung"? I'm not sure, but my gut says yes.

  Support on table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• till October 6, 2019 - The "2019" isn't needed there.
• IU had two singles rank at number one achieved with "Love Poem" and "Blueming". The latter of these went on to achieve a triple crown in December. Girl group Itzy achieved their first ever number one on the chart with their debut single "Dalla Dalla" - Three "achieve"s in three sentences.
• They previously accomplished the distinction the previous year with "Starry Night" - "They had previously accomplished" maybe?
• Other first time number ones - "first-time".

That's what I saw, EN-Jungwon. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @EN-Jungwon as a casual follow up about this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense @Hey man im josh all done. Thanks for the reminder. -- EN-Jungwon 01:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Additional disclaimer: I can't read Korean.
• "Two other soloists had more than one number one single in 2019. Singer Taeyeon had two singles rank number one on the chart in 2019: "Four Seasons" in April and "Spark" in November. IU had two singles rank at number one achieved with "Love Poem" and "Blueming"." Redundancy isn't a sin, but I think there's too much of it here. I suggest something like this: Two other soloists had more than one number one single in 2019: Taeyeon, with "Four Seasons" and "Spark", and IU, with "Love Poem" and "Blueming". [include the links]
• "Their succeeding single "Icy"": Articles on Wikipedia, especially articles about songs, are much more likely to use "succeeding" to mean "being successful", and I don't think that's what you mean here ... you mean it was their second single, right?
• Did you decide how you want to sort "%% (Eung Eung)" in the table? I see that was discussed above.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Apart from those points, nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Giants2008 and EN-Jungwon: Giants, I'm in the middle of something ... I see that my comments weren't actioned, so I need to take another look at this later today. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dank, All done. I'm very sorry for taking so long to reply. Thanks for reviewing this list. Really appreciate it. -- EN-Jungwon 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. It's not even a small problem ... I just wanted someone to look at this before it got promoted. All good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Explicit:, since you're co-nomming ... I see that Jungwon hasn't edited since Sept. 5. What did you think of my first 3 points ... agree, disagree? - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – The references appear to be reliable and well-formatted overall, and the link-checker tool shows no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 17 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC) [12].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Brazil

Nominator(s): Tone 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Brazil has 24 WHS and 22 tentative sites. Some sites are very fresh and there's plenty of nature. Since the list for Argentina was my sole running nomination and just got promoted, I am adding a new one. Standard style. Tone 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Egypt is running and is seeing support, somehow I forgot about that nomination. Anyway, nothing changes. Tone 06:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• "of the sugarcane industry".
• For "Ruins of Sao Miguel das Missoes (Brazil)" it would to add some info about the only site in Brazil along with the general info about all five missions.
• "centre of the sugar industry".
• "the Cathedral Basilica of Salvador, the Church and Convent of São Francisco, Salvador, and the Church of the Third Order of Mount Carmel."
• "The church, which is from the second half of the 18th century, is"
• " in the Italian-inspired Rococo style."
• is there a good wikilink for "ceramic-farmer societies"
• "the beach with a paving of hewn stones "
• "The park is located on the coast of the Maranhão State. It comprises a vast expanse of sandy dunes with temporary and permanent lagoons." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! As for the link, the most appropriate seems to be the Formative stage, but not ideal and may look like an Easter egg. Old-world equivalent would be Neolithic but that clearly does not apply to Brazil. Tone 18:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  ...continuing

  • "only atoll in the South Atlantic".
  • "The site was inscribed to the World Heritage List as the Brazilian Atlantic Islands"
    • Use either "inscribed on" or "added to".
    • Also, if this is already inscribed, then what is the change? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed. This is one of the cases where a tentative site gets promoted in another nomination and they forgot to do the cleanup of the list ;) Happens every now and then. Tone 10:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• I'd suggest linking New World.
• Same for Christian art.
• I know it's in the source, but I feel as if most spectacular is a bit of a vague term.
• Link hunter-gatherer.
• azulejo already implies that it's ceramic, so azulejo ceramic tiles sounds a bit weird.
• which were in past connected - Maybe "in the past"?
• one of the worlds
• various adaptation - I feel "adaptations" would be better?
• Given that the Oxford comma is used throughout the text, it would be better to include it for the Provincial Palace, the Church and Convent of Santa Cruz (pictured) and the Misericórdia Hospital and Church as well.
• the latter two now being used as a museum and an architecture reference centre - Respectively? If so, I'd suggest adding it.
• The cultural landscape or the region
• by the team of architects - Maybe "by a team of architects featuring..."?
• for grazing and cultivation which presents - A comma is missing.
• which used to span over all north-east Brazil but has since shrunk due to human activity - Either specify when it used to span all over the north-east or remove the "since".
• Parts of the ceiling has
• Immediately after that, the same problem with "since" once more.
• Ought Cerrado to be italicized?
• accelerated development of São Paulo - "the development"
• Construction of the track - "The construction"
• due to the demanding geography - Is the geography what's demanding? Or is it maybe the orography?
• The surroundings of the dam are interesting on itself - On themselves, on their own?
• the native Kiriri people whose - A comma is missing.
• a physician and epidemiologist Oswaldo Cruz - "The"?

That's what I saw. Nice work, Tone. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tone: Just following up about the above concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

On it soon. Yesterday I sorted the comments for Egypt, Brazil is next :) Tone 16:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that Tone has been offline the last 4 days, but I do expect that the concerns will be addressed when they're back online. Nomination isn't particularly old, so I'm not going to ping or rush them yet. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I plan to work on this today and tomorrow. Tone 07:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: Alright, done! Huh, that took me some time to fix, sorry. Linking Christian art sounds a bit vague to me, the rest I mostly agree with and I've fixed. Thanks again for checking! Tone 19:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Support, good stuff Tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 5 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Rookie Team selections

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Another in my list of Packers' players lists. As always, happy to address any comments or concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "made up of the best rookies" - link rookie
• "Johnnie Gray became the Packers first selection" => "Johnnie Gray became the Packers' first selection"
• That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, got them both. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

I didn't see anything wrong. I was just wondering if references 9-14 and 15, 10, 16 and 17, those two groups, could be bundled into single footnotes. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Alavense, I have no issues implementing it, although I am having trouble technically on how to accomplish it. Do you have an example page you can point to that has this implemented? My main challenge is that the sources you are noting are using reference tags already, so I would be wrapping reference tags inside reference tags. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to do it myself as well and I didn't manage to do it because of what you say. In any case, it was no more than a suggestion, nothing relevant. So I'll support. Nice work, as always. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• James Lofton's row is 1978–1986, but you used two digit years for the second year in all of the rows (except when crossing between centuries)
• Randall Cobb's row has the same issue with 2011–2018
• Might be a good idea to put a line break in the header for alignment since that column is looking a little wide and you already have two columns that start a new line
• The names in the 2006, 2009, and 2014 rows aren't alphabetical by last name like the other years with multiple entries

That's all I've got, good stuff Gonzo. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, all fixed. Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 4 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) [14].

---

Timeline of the 1995 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I went all of June without nominating anything to FLC, so here's a second July nom to compensate 🤠 The 1995 Pacific hurricane season was the quietest in 16 years and heralded the start of an era of lower activity for the basin (some particularly active seasons during the 2010s be damned). Even so, the season still featured three Category 4 hurricanes on the Saffir–Simpson scale (out of only 10 storms overall, which I'd say is a rather impressive ratio), as well as the deadly Hurricane Ismael, whose name was retired the following spring. "Only" a Category 1 at its peak intensity, Ismael used the element of surprise as a weapon, thrusting itself into the Gulf of California and onto the Mexican coast sooner than anticipated. As a result, many on land and at sea were unprepared for the storm, and over 100 people were killed. I do have another nomination currently open, but it already has a couple supports, and there are presently no concerns that have not been addressed. As always, I look forward to the community's feedback, and will aim to rectify any qualms as quickly as possible. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by AndrewPeterT

Hello, Dylan. I plan on commenting on both this nomination and your other active nomination further shortly. For now, I will note that there is a red link to what should be the article for the timeline on the 1996 Pacific hurricane season in the lede navigation box. Are there plans to create this article in the near future? If not, I would suggest adding a redirect link to the timeline on the main 1996 Pacific hurricane season article.

Also, while only tangentially related to this subject, the name that replaced Ismael (i.e. Israel), had to be itself removed because of negative reception (which given current events, makes one wonder how no one even thought about those negative implications until half a decade later). AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, it's good to see you! I'll switch out the link shortly – I do intend to create a timeline for the 1996 season in the near-ish future, but I'm not quite sure what near-ish is because there are other projects I have in the pipeline. As for the Ismael–Israel issue (which I agree with you is utterly baffling), I thought about including it, but just didn't quite think it was relevant enough to mention in the lede. The paragraph where Ismael's impacts are described is already pretty beefy, and I wanted to make sure I had room to mention Flossie and Henriette's impacts, too. I see you also have an FLC up – I'll be sure to take a look in the next couple days or so! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @AndrewPeterT, just following up on this since you left a comment about your intents. No pressure! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I plan on having comments by the end of the day next Monday, September 2. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Specific feedback - Oppose (edited 01:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)) until comments are resolved

@Dylan620: Here is what I noticed going through the list:

1. For the satellite images of Adolph, Barbara, Erick, Flossie, and Henriette, their source link sends me to a dead link.
2. For the satellite image of Cosme, the source link takes me to a sign-in page where the photo is not visible.
3. For the satellite image of Ismael, I am taken to this search database, where I (and presumably others) do not know how to locate the photo.
4. Regarding

   the final, Hurricane Juliette, dissipated on September 26, making this season the first since the beginning of the satellite era in which no tropical cyclones were active after September

   in the lede: The cited source only establishes that the 1995 season was the first in the satellite era without an October eastern Pacific tropical cyclone. I would recommend rewriting this sentence or finding another source that explicitly supports this claim (although I do believe it is true).

   I've added a citation to HURDAT. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

5. Regarding

   Flossie in August remained off the coast of Mexico but passed close enough to cause gusty winds and flooding rains; seven people died ... An eighth death occurred after Flossie helped generate severe thunderstorms and flash floods in Arizona

   in the lede: This seems like WP:UNDUE weight of Hurricane Flossie's impacts, especially considering that the storm never made landfall. Perhaps simply stating that Flossie caused eight fatalities would suffice?

   I've been thinking about this, and I just can't agree that there is an issue with undue weight here. Flossie may not have made landfall, but it was still the only storm not named Ismael to cause fatalities during the season, and while it wasn't terribly destructive, it still caused non-negligible damage in Mexico and Arizona. I felt like it was appropriate to structure the impacts paragraph so that roughly half of it discussed Ismael, with Flossie and Henriette each getting a quarter. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

6. Regarding

   Tropical Depression Adolph is last noted as a tropical cyclone about 320 mi (520 km) south-southwest of the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula; it dissipates shortly thereafter

   in the June 21 section: This sentence is missing a period at the end.

   D'oh! I've no clue how I missed this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

7. Regarding Barbara's descriptions in the July 17 and July 18 sections: Is there a way that these coordinates can be reported in terms of distance from somewhere in Hawaii (e.g. Hilo, Hawaii)? I ask because nowadays, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center tends to report tropical cyclone distances from the Hawaiian islands as opposed to Mexico in their advisories.

   I've added citations to the CPHC's post-season report to support using Hilo as a location reference point. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

8. Regarding

   Tropical Depression Seven-E forms from a large and "monsoon-like" area of low pressure about 310 mi (500 km) west-southwest of Acapulco, Guerrero

   in the August 7 section: The cited source notes that the "monsoon-like" mode of formation means that tropical waves are not the primary large-scale forcing. Furthermore, the source mentions that Seven-E (i.e. Hurricane Flossie) formed within a low-pressure area and a large, deep cyclonic circulation. Could this entry be reworded to better account for this information?

   I've rephrased this to an area of low pressure within a broad region of cyclonic rotation. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

9. Finally, and more generally, is there a way that the abbreviations used can be linked to their "full" form per MOS:SOURCEABBR? For example, mi is used consistently in the list's body, but there is no explicit language relating it to mile(s), as used in the lede.

   I've attempted to address this by piping links to mile and kilometer on each first usage of mi or km in a given month. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

In general, this list is very well-organized and provides a comprehensive yet accessible understanding of the 1995 Pacific hurricane season. However, the fact that every satellite image has sourcing concerns is enough for me to withhold my support at this time per #5(b) of WP:FLCR. Once my feedback, especially the first three points, is addressed, I look forward to supporting this nomination. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thank you for the constructive criticism. I'm off to bed because I have work early in the morning, but (I think) I have already addressed a few of your concerns—specific replies inline. I'll resume with the rest tomorrow, including contacting the uploaders of the satellite images. Unfortunately, many of the best satellite images on Commons seem to be from limited-access sources; I don't know how to access them, either. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT: OK, so I reached out to the uploaders and they either provided me with updated URLs or fixed the links themselves, so that issue should now be resolved. The images that can readily be seen by searching the sites provide rather oblique/tilted views of the EPAC tropical cyclones because the satellites aren't positioned directly above the storms. At this discussion, one of the uploaders (courtesy ping CooperScience) explained their process for making the images so that there was an overhead view of each storm. They downloaded satellite data in the form of tarballs, and (based on the summary tags of the Commons uploads) superimposed that data over NOAA imagery of the terrain, showing what the storm looked like from directly overhead. I can only assume that a similar process was applied for the other satellite images. In other words, those sites do not contain the images as they appear on Commons, but they do provide the satellite data that was used to render the images (though I don't know what external program[s] would be used to superimpose the data). I hope this assuages your concerns about the sourcing for the satellite images. I have also finished replying to your other, prose-related comments: I acted on most, but there was one that I didn't feel would be an improvement. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Thank you for addressing my feedback. At this time, I feel that you have adequately resolved my concerns. Therefore, I now support this nomination. Good luck with the rest of the process! AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• 1 ref is missing its archive link.
• The lead image is missing alt text.
• No issues that I could see in the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback MPGuy2824; I believe I have addressed both of your comments. Turns out I had the parameter name wrong for the infobox alt text. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

    Support on prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Does Equator really need to be uppercase?
  • I had long thought "the Equator" to be a proper noun in this context, and am picking up mixed signals as to which case it should be in. On one hand, the Google Books Ngram Viewer indicates that "the equator" is more common in literature; on the other hand, when I checked the MOS for direct guidance, it was capitalized on the only usage I could find (see MOS:SEASON). This discussion from a couple years ago didn't seem to reach a consensus as to whether one was more appropriate than the other. I've erred on the side of the Ngram and de-capitalized the word. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• an average Pacific hurricane season generated 15 tropical storms, eight hurricanes, and four major hurricanes - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• Ditto for only 11 tropical depressions developed, of which 10 strengthened into named tropical storms. Seven became hurricanes, of which three further intensified into major hurricanes.
  • Good catch; I've fixed both of the above. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• I think it would come in handy to have links to hurricanes, depressions and so on in the captions. What do you think?
  • Couldn't hurt! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Alavense – I think I've addressed everything. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, Dylan620, and good work. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Source check by IntentionallyDense

It doesn't look like anyone has done a Source check for this article yet so I will be doing so. I'm going to do this in a table format and update as I go, as that is what is easiest for me. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Source Check

Section	Status	Sources I can't access	Comments
Lead	In progress
Time	In progress		"06:00 UTC (11:00 p.m. PDT, May 20) at 13.2°N 104.2°W – Tropical Depression One-E forms from an Intertropical Convergence Zone disturbance about 405 mi (650 km) south of Manzanillo, Colima; it simultaneously attains peak winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)." Your source says the winds only reached 30mph. Source also says that it was 350 mi south. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC) The winds in the NHC's reports are listed in knots, not mph; 30 knots * 1.151 = 34.53 mph, which rounds to 35. Distances are also given in nautical miles instead of statute miles; 350 nmi * 1.151 = 402.85 miles, which rounds to 405. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) Your source doesn't support the "about 525 mi (845 km) southwest of Manzanillo, Colima" and "about 815 mi (1,315 km) west-southwest of Manzanillo, Colima". Were these numbers reached based on the coordinates given or am I missing something? IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC) The NHC's website provides a latitude/longitude distance calculator, which I used to calculate the distances between the location points provided in the NHC's reports and the coordinates of each city or geographic landmark as provided at the top of the Wikipedia article for the reference point in question (in this case, Manzanillo, Colima). Bearing was ascertained by repeating the process with this script. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "755 mi (1,215 km) south-southeast of the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula" Your source doesn't mention the exact location or peninsula part. Was that again based on coordinates? IntentionallyDense (talk) Yeah, I used the coordinates provided for the Cabo San Lucas article, just tweaked slightly (22.875°N, 109.96°W) so I could get as close as I could to the exact southern tip of the peninsula. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to stop for now as I'm a bit confused about how you are getting specific number that the sources don't have. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for picking this up IntentionallyDense – I've responded inline to the feedback you've given so far. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I don’t think it’s a good idea for me to go ahead with this source check just because I lack knowledge in this area and I don’t think I can properly evaluate the sources if I can’t interpret them. Sorry for any confusion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries IntentionallyDense – I can't fault you for not feeling comfortable in an unfamiliar topic area, and I appreciate that you were willing to take this on. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Image review – All of the images I checked (a representative handful) have appropriate free licenses, and they all have appropriate captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:11, 15 September 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, 16 September 2024 (UTC) [15].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Egypt

Nominator(s): Tone 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Pharaohs! Pyramids! And ... ancient whales, wow! Egypt has 7 WHS and a series of tentative sites. Standard style. The nomination for Argentina is already seeing support so I am adding a second nomination. Tone 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Alavense

• "The latter is also the only natural site in Egypt, the other sites are listed for their cultural properties" --> "The latter is also the only natural site in Egypt, the other sites being listed for their cultural properties"
• Is the capitalisation really needed in "Ruins of town of Elephantine" and "Stone quarries and Unfinished obelisk"?
• "around the tomb of Menas of Alexandria who died in 296" - A comma is missing.
• No need for the capital c in "Classical antiquity".
• "Mount Horeb - the place where" - Use {{endash}}.
• "the latter has been listed as a World Heritage Site in 2002" - That one should also by preceded by an {{endash}}.
• "It was first used by Sneferu of the Fourth Dynasty who constructed the Bent Pyramid" - A comma mising before "who".
• "and statues.|"
• In "The monasteries of the Arab Desert and Wadi Natrun", the description reads a bit convoluted. Maybe something along the lines of "Other monasteries include those of Saint Paul the Anchorite, Saint Pishoy" and so on?
• Shouldn't it be "a 30-inch reflecting telescope"?
• The references are used not only for the description, but also for the other columns, so I think it would make more sense to have them isolated in another column to the right of the description.

That's all I saw. Thanks for your dedication to the list, Tone. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! As for references, the table is already rather busy, so additional column would make it worse, stylistically. I think it is rather clear for the reader what they refer to. The capitalizations are per source. The rest I've fixed. Tone 07:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Support. Alavense (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "The monuments are: Abu Simbel (commissioned by Ramesses II, relocation pictured), New Amada, New Wadi Sebua, New Kalabsha, the Philae temple complex (on Agilkia Island, from Greco-Roman period), Qubbet el-Hawa (Old and Middle Kingdom Tombs), Ruins of the town of Elephantine, Stone quarries and Unfinished obelisk, the Monastery of St. Simeon, and the Fatimid Cemetery."
• "It was a major city during the Islamic Golden Age and beyond," It isn't clear if beyond means before the golden age OR after OR both.
• "The main buildings were constructed in".
• "stability of the clay-based soils," Also end this sentence with a full stop.
• "oldest Christian monastery still in function" to "oldest functioning Christian monastery"
• wikilink "oracle temple"
• "comprises the Temple of Serabit Khadem"
• "military expeditions in both ways" to "military expeditions in both directions"
• "Feiran Oasis has" to "The Feiran oasis"
• "to the dorcas gazelle" in two places
• wikilink "humid periods".
• plularize "dugong".
• There seems to be a lot of overlap between "Southern and Smaller Oases, the Western Desert" and "Kharga Oasis and the Small Southern Oases", An explanatory note would be good here.
• That's all I got. Please ping me when you fix these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Done, thanks! Great comments. Tone 14:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "First sites in Egypt were listed in 1979" => "The first sites in Egypt were listed in 1979"
• "The latter is also the only natural site in Egypt" => "The latter is the only natural site in Egypt"
• "resulting in threats to structural integrity of the monuments" => "resulting in threats to the structural integrity of the monuments"
• "Main monuments date from the period from 1500 to 1000 BCE" => "The main monuments date from the period from 1500 to 1000 BCE"
• "Ruins of the town of Elephantine," => "the ruins of the town of Elephantine,"
• "Stone quarries and Unfinished obelisk," => "stone quarries and an unfinished obelisk,"
• "The latter has been listed as a World Heritage Site in 2002" => "The latter was listed as a World Heritage Site in 2002"
• "on a mountain at the height of 2,150 m (7,050 ft)" => "on a mountain at a height of 2,150 m (7,050 ft)"
• "The complex contained two basilicas, an oil press, rooms for monks, and was surrounded by defensive walls" > "The complex contained two basilicas, an oil press and rooms for monks, and was surrounded by defensive walls"
• "Alexandria was founded in 332 BCE by Alexander the Great and was an important centre of arts and learning in Classical Antiquity," => "Alexandria was founded in 332 BCE by Alexander the Great and was an important centre of arts and learning in classical antiquity,"
• "There used to be a large lake in the Antiquity" => "There used to be a large lake in antiquity" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed all, thanks! I was not sure about the Nubian monuments capitalizations but since you are the second reviewer that pointed that out, I fixed is as suggested. Tone 08:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I see this on the source reviews needed list. Just taking a look at the lede & the heritage sites for now, not the tentative list.

Prose (usual disclaimer that these are suggestions, not demands, feel free to decline):

• There are a lot of parenthetical comments in the lede. I've used those myself in the lede to introduce technical terms, but I'm not sure they're really required here? Why not just use sublists and semicolons? e.g. "of monuments such as architectural works, monumental sculptures, and inscriptions; groups of buildings; and sites, including archaeological sites."
• Wadi Al-Hitan is the most important fossil site to study the evolution of cetaceans from terrestrial to marine mammals. The source says demonstrate the evolution of whales. This phrasing makes it sound like you have to actually be in the valley to study them, rather than safely back at the air-conditioned lab. Maybe rephrase to "the study of" or the like? something like "The fossils at Wadi Al-Hitan are key evidence in the study of the evolution of cetaceans from terrestrial to marine mammals"? Up to you.

Sources:

• This is the biggest, overarching one. This list is entirely 100% sourced to UNESCO itself (Which then has a big disclaimer about how "The sole responsibility for the content of each Nomination file lies with the State Party concerned."). I guess the argument is that UNESCO knows what its heritage sites are and why it marked them as such, so they are the best source possible, but it's a little shaky. I get that this is a list, not prose, but I highly doubt UNESCO would talk about any controversies in this list, as an example, or cite a rival country saying that their valley is even better for documenting whales. Are there any secondary sources talking about UNESCO and Egypt together? If so, do they offer anything interesting that the UNESCO website doesn't currently? If not, it may be fine, but we should at least look first.
• Egypt accepted the convention on 7 February 1974, making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list. First off, "accepted" and "ratified" are not quite synonyms. Both the source and https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ explicitly indicate "ratified." Second, no it didn't make its historical sites eligible for inclusion. There wasn't a procedure yet, and it wouldn't be until later that the rules for eligibility were even created (see List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription). I would just say something like "was the second country to ratify the Convention" which is true and neat, sourced to the webpage linked above.
• Memphis doesn't check out. The website says (i)(iii)(vi) but the row says i, v, vi - typo, or are there conflicting sources that need reconciling?
• The Notes blurb for Historic Cairo says that "the historical part is well preserved". But Islamic_Cairo#Preservation_status says that this is pretty much false. Even UNESCO's own blurb, which is being used as the source, talks about "huge challenges", "neglect and lack of intervention", and "highly vulnerable". I'm cherry-picking here, but I'm not sure this Notes is an accurate summation of the situation. But this goes to the above question - should this table be strictly summarizing what UNESCO's writeup says (even if hypothetically including "aspirational" claims it would not be diplomatic to point out?)? Or the actual reality on the ground?
• This one isn't your fault, but it's a little weird our article on the Nubian monuments is at a title of "International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia" rather than "Nubian Monuments" or the like. You'd think the monuments would be more important and lasting than the campaign. SnowFire (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No pressure or rush, but just following up and pinging to make sure you're aware of the feedback @Tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Busy week. I'll see if I can take care of the comments during the weekend :) Tone 21:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I finally got to work on the comments, thanks for the great input. As for the intro, I am using standard text that has been polished through years for consistency. But you are right, Egypt ratified the convention years before the first monuments got listed, so I adjusted that. As for the sources, we've had a long-standing consensus that the UNESCO sources are better than the others, as they actually state why something was listed. Other sources are typically derivative, but sometimes I am using others if there is a good reason (reminds me of an updated height of some mountain or sometimes the text in the tentative lists is simply missing). Great spot with Historic Cairo, I updated the text with a 2019 report, after all, the site was listed in 1979. As for Nubia, this is the list where all the monuments are listed in a table, others are stand-alone articles. I was thinking of alternatives but this is probably the best one. Thanks again! Tone 08:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I get that this verbiage might be used on other articles, and don't want to necessarily mandate my preferences broadly. That said, if we're saying that "this is what the UNESCO documents say", it's possible this could be described a little more bluntly? The UNESCO links themselves have the above disclaimer I mentioned about "this is from the State Party concerned", i.e. Egypt in this case. If they thought it was worth giving that disclaimer, maybe we should hint at that too.

Also, I don't think this is a major grammar nit, but even if you prefer the parenthetical style currently used in the lede, my understanding is that sentences with "sublists" still need a semicolon to distinguish the overarching list from the sublists. As such, I'd recommend something more like:

Natural heritage is defined as: natural features (consisting of physical and biological formations); geological and physiographical formations (including habitats of threatened species of animals and plants); and natural sites which are important from the point of view of science, conservation, or natural beauty.

Could ditch the colon if you don't like it, but that last list requires semicolons for the top-level one. SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, looks better on the main 7 sites. Anyway, source review on the tentative sites forthcoming... SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• (non-actionable side chatter) I guess this is fine since we're mirroring UNESCO exactly and they still list it, but "Temple of Serabit Khadem" is weird since as noted, part of it was clearly accepted as a Heritage site a decade later in Saint Catherine's. Seems more like a historical note.
  • Yeah, this is one of the sites in the "cleanup needed" category where nominations get updated or promoted in different settings but noone cleans up the old ones. Still, it is in the source, so I feel obliged to keep it included.
• (more side chatter) I don't know if North Sinai Archaeological Sites Zone is notable as a separate article. It just looks like the name Egypt stamped on their UNESCO application, but it doesn't appear to be a real thing that any archaeologist in the area would say if not directly discussing "the application Egypt made to list this as a UNESCO site." (All of the references seem to be to UNESCO.) Maybe something to clean up?
  • Agreed, but it has two extra sources in addition to the UNESCO one. I'd leave it as it is, especially because it is separate from the list.
• Temple of Hator built by Ramses III: Similar to the mountain height example above, this may be a time to bring in non-UNESCO sources. I'm not sure this site is reliable, but it indicates it's probably referring to Dendera_Temple_complex#Hathor_temple, which was ironically not built by Ramses III. Featured standards are high, but I don't see any other famous Temples to Hathor from a quick Google, so maybe something like "Hypothesized the nomination refers to the Temple to Hathor at Dendera" in the notes? (Skip a picture though since we aren't 100%.)
  • I think the list linked to this temple before I started working on it, however, the location is stated to be in "Middle Sinai" while the Dendera complex is in Upper Egypt. I prefer not to speculate.
• This nomination comprises sites such as - There are only 8 sites on the list. I'd say just list all of them rather than say "such as" and only list 5/8.
• Okay, I'm going to stop commenting on other linked articles as it's irrelevant to this list, but El-Gendi Fortress is another article that causes my eye to twitch a bit as being solely sourced to UNESCO, and seemingly treating a "tentative" list as a lot more meaningful than it really is.
  • Agreed, the nomination is super sketchy, but not much to be done here. I cannot cleanup the UNESCO records...
• The ruins of a 6th century monastery were discovered in 1984. - Nit: Technically, we should say it was this monastery, not Some Other Monastery - "Rutho Monastery was constructed in the 6th century under Emperor Justinian. Its ruins were discovered in 1984." perhaps?
• Nit: I'd say that Ptolemaic Kingdom is a more relevant link for "Ptolemaic period" than the Ptolemaic dynasty (in the "Pharaonic temples in Upper Egypt " entry). This is referring to the era, not the specific family.
• They mainly date from the Middle Kingdom to the Roman period. - Is there doubt on some of these? This sentence makes it sound like there are exceptions, but the document says "the tombs can be all dated between the Middle Empire and the low Roman period." So either kill "mainly", or explain the exception(s) in text IMO.
• Nit: and the Saint Mary Deipara - is "the" needed here?
• They were strategic forts during the Crusades but lost importance after 1291 and were later abandoned. Strictly speaking, not supported by the source. I'd say to either add a source that indicates they were abandoned, or to weaken this claim. (The source writes "it seems to have lost its importance and may even have been abandoned.")
• The observatory quickly became a tourist destination. This is referenced. While I'm fine with saying we're trusting the UNESCO documents, I don't think we're obligated to mention everything in them, and this claim seems... aspirational. Neither ar:حلوان nor Google suggests a major tourist destination to me. Up to you, but I'd weaken this claim or outright remove it.

Anyway, largely looks good. Take a look at the above comments, and happy to support if they're resolved (many of which are nitpicks / optional anyway). SnowFire (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• But just to talk more on the topic... does anyone talk anywhere that apparently countries can just list the same sites over and over on the Tentative list but chop them up different ways? If so, we might want to change the way they're described, since Temple of Hathor is essentially in twice, St. Catherines Monastery is in twice, etc. SnowFire (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I see you've been back online and editing again, so I'll send you a ping about this @Tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • @SnowFire: I think I'm through. Some inline comments above, the rest I agree with and I took care of. If I missed anything minor, feel free to fix the way you think is appropriate. Thanks again for this extended review, great comments :) --Tone 09:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• This is a larger issue than just this list, but if the problem of the "tentative" list containing repeats / duplicates comes up elsewhere for other countries' lists, we might need new terminology, like "tentative nominations" where everyone can agree XYZ was nominated in 1990 or the like, and the fact it actually made the list later isn't contradictory. (Rather than "tentative sites" when in truth the site is no longer tentative, or was the same site twice, etc.) Just something to think on.
• Support. SnowFire (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I believe it is the sole responsibility of the nominating party to keep the tentative list tidy and some do not. I have seen cases where numerous tentative sites are just dropped, so some countries do take care of the lists ;) Let's see. Tone 16:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• The images are relevant and all of reasonable quality.
• Egypt adm location map.svg has an appropriate CC license.
• In the list, there are a few entries without illustrations, including El-Gendi Fortress, Rutho Monastery, Wadi Feiran. Temple of Hator built by Ramses III has no illustration, but it is commented "No information provided in the nomination documentation".
• All Gizah Pyramids.jpg was a featured picture and was picture of the day. It is appropriately licensed.
• Templo de Luxor, Luxor, Egipto, 2022-04-01, DD 01.jpg is a quality image and has an appropriate CC license.
• Abusimbel.jpg has a Swedish PD tag. It needs a US PD tag.
• Islamic Cairo (2005-05-385).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• Abu Mena Ancient Monastery 05.JPG has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 2.jpg was a featured picture and was picture of the day. It is appropriately licensed.
• The whales fossils.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• Siwa Oasis, Western Desert, Egypt.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• SerabitBothChapels.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• Bent Pyramid 曲折金字塔 - panoramio.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• DimaiLandscape.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• Aqaba Castle.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• TunaGebelPtolemaios.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• Ballon fish Ras Mohammed - panoramio.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• Lake Moeris 034.JPG has an appropriate CC license.
• Dakhla Oasis view (May 2007).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• 2012 Bardawil (Egypt).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• Wadi el Gemal National Red Sea.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• GilfKebir1.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• SiwaSandDunes.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• AlexSarapeionPompeysPillar.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• Abydos Tempel Ramses II. 04.JPG has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• Dendera 7 977.PNG has an appropriate PD license.
• Exterior view of tombs of Khety and Barquet III.JPG has an appropriate PD license.
• Cairo Nilometer 2.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• Deir as Suriani.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
• Sand Castle. Pharaon Island (9198174615).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• Nakhl00040v.jpg has an appropriate PD tag from the Ottoman Empire. The US license is assumed as the source is the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Photograph Album.
• Faiyum Oasis by Zorbey Tunçer.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• لمعالم الاثرية من رحلة رشيد 5.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• Dababiya 3.jpg has appropriate GNU licenses.
• Helwan Observatory.jpg has an Egyptian PD tag and is public domain in the US as it was published before 1946 and copyright had expired in Egypt before January 1, 1996.
• Bagawat.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• The Egyptian Museum.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• Images from Flickr (such as Castle. Pharaon Island (9198174615).jpg and Faiyum Oasis by Zorbey Tunçer.jpg) have been reviewed.
• All images have ALT tags for accessibility.

@Tone: This looks a good use of images to illustrate the list, with two of the images appearing as picture of the day. The only adjustment I can see is to add a US public domain license to Abusimbel.jpg and to see if there any of the missing illustrations can be found. simongraham (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I am not that well-versed in licenses, can you add the right one to Abusimbel? I kind of like this photo in the article because it shows action, not just the monument. Tone 08:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the image tag. Promoting. --PresN 22:11, 15 September 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC) [16].

---

List of municipalities in Guadalajara

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)

We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made an excellent template based on our last nomination and we have incorporated those changes into this nomination. Should go smoothly but we are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy" The sentence before this is about the province. It think you should move this to the second paragraph and add a sentence or two about the province in the first paragraph.

• While that it's true, I think we also have to bear in mind that this list is about the municipalities in that given province, so it makes sense, in my opinion, that most of the information is about said municipalities. In any case, I would like to have Mattximus's opinion on this. Alavense (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• The first sentence introduces both the province and the municipalities. Then the following sentences maintains this order talking about the provinces then the municipalities. I do like how this flows, and you can read the first paragraph and get the article right away. Mattximus (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• "One concejal is added for every additional 100,000 inhabitants, with a further one added when the number of concejales based on this methodology would be even in order to prevent tied votes." This sentence isn't needed given that the most-populated municipality has less than 100,000 inhabitants.

• Done. Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Torremochuela has 6 residents, three of whom are councillors. - Sorry, no comment here. I just thought is was funny.

• It had up to 225 inhabitants in the 1950s. It's one of the best examples of what's called the "emptied Spain". Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Cabanillas del Campo is the province of Guadalajara's fourth largest municipality by population." it should be fifth-largest.

• Solved. Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Quite a few refs are missing archive links. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• I tried to run the bot, but, given that some of the refs have permalinks that lead to selections of information, that didn't work out. So I went ahead and archived as many as I could myself. Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, MPGuy2824. I've addressed as many as I could. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging MPGuy2824 to see if there's anything else we can do. Alavense (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Elections in municipalities with more than 250 inhabitans" - last word is spelt incorrectly

• Fixed. Good catch! Mattximus (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review from Averageuntitleduser

Minor, nitpicky stuff for the images.

• Optionally, the the alt texts of the first two maps could be changed to "refer to caption".

• I'm not really strong willed on this one but would prefer to keep as is to maintain consistency with the other 50 or so featured municipality lists.

• Optionally, the Guadalajara image could be replaced with Guadalajara-aire (retocada); a little closer and does not contain the plane.

• Unfortunately this image is much lower resolution and the buildings appear blurry, but you're right it's a better frame. However I would take clear image with a plane over blurry image without.

• Suggest changing the Azuqueca de Henares alt text to "Monument in front of buildings in Azuqueca de Henares".

• Done. Mattximus (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

All sources are from governmental organizations and appear reliable. Checked sources 1, 3, 9, and 11, and they all pass or build on basic facts sourced elsewhere. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• All done Averageuntitleduser, thanks for your review! Mattximus (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with your reasoning for the first two points. Oh, and source formatting looks good too. Support. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 20:54, 15 September 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC) [17].

---

List of Coachella Valley Firebirds players

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keeping up with my trend of getting ice hockey lists to FL, this time, I'm doing Coachella Valley Firebirds players. I think this list meets all the criteria. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• I would change "54 players, 8 goaltenders and 46 skaters (forwards and defenseman), have worn a Firebirds jersey in at least one regular season game" to "54 players have worn a Firebirds jersey in at least one regular season game, comprising 8 goaltenders and 46 skaters (forwards and defenseman)," to remove any potential confusion that it's 54+8+46 rather than 54=8+46
• "The Firebirds have yet to win the Calder Cup." => "The Firebirds have yet to win the Calder Cup, the trophy awarded to the AHL champions."
• "who is "the only team members" - not grammatically correct
• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !style="background-color:#FF670C; color:#000000;"rowspan="2"|Skater becomes !scope=col style="background-color:#FF670C; color:#000000;" rowspan="2"|Skatery. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! {{sortname|Max|Andreev}}* becomes !scope=row | {{sortname|Max|Andreev}}*. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 22:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Except for Name, Nat, Seasons and Notes, the other column headers don't need rowspans at all. Please remove them
• Each row has a bgcolor set to white, which can be removed.
• There is only one note across both tables. You can make it into a normal footnote and eliminate the column completely. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: I have made the changes. I do feel that keeping the notes column is necessary, because as the Firebirds play more games, there will be more award winners, captains, and (hopefully) Calder Cup winners on the team. XR228 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  • I assume that the source for the tables is hockeydb.com. You can make it clearer by adding a citation to each table's caption.
  • Every note will require a ref.

  Support in advance since I trust that you'll get these done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: I have made the changes. If you are able, could you look at my other FL nom? It's been like 23 days since someone commented on it. XR228 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Since that FLC has two prose supports and seems old enough, I added it to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog/items. Somebody should come along to get that done in a few days. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. XR228 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Two consecutive sentences begin with Since their creation, which reads a bit odd.
• For someone (like myself) who knows nothing about how these leagues work, the fact that they have affiliated with the National Hockey League (NHL)'s Seattle Kraken doesn't mean much if it isn't explained. I think.
• Nat should be Nat. and Pos should be Pos.. Besides, please consider using {{abbr}} for those and also the others.
• There are no notes in the first table, so you can get rid of that empty column.
• All in all, I think the lede is a bit short and says nothing about statistics, other than how many players have worn the jersey. Could something be added?

That's what I saw, XR228. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I would use {{abbr}} as previously stated, but I will support anyway. Alavense (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted. The link-checker tool indicated that a few of the links might have been dead, but I checked a couple of them manually and found no issues. Must have been some false positives there. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. XR228 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Giants2008 hold up is this a support or not? XR228 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's just my check of the sources. I'd be conflicted out of closing the FLC down the line if I support, so I'll refrain from a full review. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. XR228 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Giants2008: So far there have been three normal reviews and your source review. Does this mean the review is over? This is my fourth FL nom and I still don't get how it works lol. XR228 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It's over whenever a delegate gets to it and thinks it's ready... which is now: promoting! --PresN 22:11, 15 September 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC) [18].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1973

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

With the 1971 list having just been promoted and 1972 having several supports, here's the 1973 list. This was possibly the peak year for easy listening sounds also dominating the pop charts, and it also saw the first chart-topper for a little piano-playing guy from Pinner in Middlesex who went on to do quite well for himself..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• You know the drill.
• "the English singer Elton John, a singer who": I think I'd say "the English singer Elton John, who".
• "Richard Nixon (left))": I think I remember that MOS doesn't like "))" ... if that's still true, then maybe "Richard Nixon, left)".
• "The Most Beautiful Girl" is sorting after "S" in the 2nd column of the table ... that doesn't look right.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing else is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• @Dank: - many thanks for your review, all done I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Source Review - BennyOnTheLoose

• WP:ALLMUSIC says "Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available." In view of this, I'd suggest finding an alternative to the Weber AllMusic article about Jim Croce.
• "one of the most successful acts in the chart's history." in the caption is true, but I wonder if it's a bit of an understatement considering the text mentioning "most successful act of the listing's first 50 years."
• Other sources all look fine.
• Although spot checks are not required, I took a look at the Trust source about Elton John. No issues. I don't think there is a phrase that in itself directly supports "consistent success" but that seems like a fair summary. As we are mentioning " greatest number of entries", then optionally you could add something about "Your Song" being in the chart in December 1970.
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: - Croce source replaced and Elton caption tweaked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Paul McCartney and Wings" could probably be linked to Paul McCartney and Wings rather than having two links, but that's optional.
• Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like it meets the FL criteria to me. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • McCartney change made! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• Image review - pass: All of the images have working source links, except File:Carpenters and Nixon.gif which can be assumed to have been a government work as claimed since it's the oval office, and are appropriately licensed.
• There seems to be only one Reddy mentioned in the article so the second instance of her full name in the lead could be reduced to the last name.
• "Rich's song was a triple chart-topper, as it also reached number one on the Hot Country Songs chart." - First part of the sentence seems to be redundant as "Rich's song also reached number one on the Hot Country Songs chart." would convey the same point.
• References look perfect.
• With that being said, it is already a support as these are suggestions for minor changes. Always enjoy these lists.--NØ 06:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Changes made! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• In the first issue of Billboard of 1973 - You usually state when the first issue was published.
• You know how I feel about captions and expliciting when the picture was taken. I would add the year the picture was taken whenever possible.

In any case, those are minor things, so I'll go ahead and support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• All done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

I also did a source review and I've been stumped, I've got nothing, support. Good stuff as always Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 3 September 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC) [19].

---

List of accolades received by Carol (film)

Nominator(s): Lapadite (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting this nomination. I've had time now to properly address the previous recommendations, as well as update the formatting to comply with recent FL standards and update the references. This film is widely acclaimed and has made many best of lists. It received nominations from all major awards. Most of its award wins were from critics and festival organizations, so the lead focuses on that in the final paragraph. Lapadite (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Carter Burwell score" => "Carter Burwell's score"
• "The actresses also received Screen Actors Guild Award nominations" - in the image caption you call them the more gender neutral "actors"......?
• Palm Springs International Film Festival awards for Blanchett and Mara sort incorrectly in the recipient column
• "Organizations without a Wikipedia page are not included in the list of accolades" => "Organizations without a Wikipedia article are not included in the list of accolades"
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done, thank you. Glad to have fresh eyes on this finally, my eyes burn from working on it for too long hah. Lapadite (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• For cells like "AACTA Awards" which span multiple rows, the scope should be "rowgroup", not "row".
• A few refs are missing archive links.
• "Organizations without a Wikipedia article are not included in the list of accolades." Replace "Organizations" with a word that encompasses film festivals, orgs and awards. e.g. "AARP Movies For Grownups Awards" is an award managed by the org AARP.
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: Thanks, added the missing archives. I left "organizations" there as awards from the industry, critic groups, film festivals, and AARP are all from organizations; but then there are also magazine awards and one from Frankfurt Book Fair, which appears to be a business/commercial entity. Do you have a suggested term, or should that note be removed?

  Regarding the scope parameter, several of the recent FLs I looked at didn't use "rowgroup" (Dunkirk, Black), that's why I left it like that. Before I start changing all the scope's here please let me know if "rowgroup" is necessary or optional. Lapadite (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Regarding "organization", I think you can remove the note.
  • Regarding rowgroup, MOS:DTAB says it is needed: " Use ... ! scope="rowgroup" rowspan="2" | if a row header spans a group of rows, adjusting the span count as needed." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

    @MPGuy2824: Removed and done. Lapadite (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

    Support. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81

• I'm wondering why not all of the awards and nominations that Carol received are not listed in the infbox like other film accolades lists? The awards and nominations in the infobox do not add up in the figure for the total number of awards and nominations the film received.
• Also, all movie titles in the references should be italicized as well per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

That is all I have. Can you take a look at my FLC for the 96th Academy Awards or this one for the 1996 Summer Olympics medal table?

--Birdienest81talk 06:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: I didn't add all the other awards to the infobox as I found it unnecessary bloating of the infobox and redundant. I only added the major industry and critic organizations of awards season.

What is the template/markup that allows italicizing words with an apostrophe inside a citation template? Template:Apostrophe isn't fit for citation templates. Lapadite (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Same as article text, just two apostrophes. I've done it for you. --PresN 22:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Not being a complete sentence, the note doesn't require a full stop.
• Given that Mara is the one on the left and Blanchett the one on the right in the image, I think it would be worth stating that in the caption.

That's all I got, so I'm going to go ahead and support promotion. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:11, 15 September 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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC) [20].

---

National symbols of Nigeria

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The national symbols of Nigeria represent the country's identity, heritage, and values, reflecting its cultural diversity and historical journey. These symbols include the national flag, coat of arms, anthem, and pledge, as well as the national flower, animal, currency, etc. This list is intended to be part of the Developing Countries Wiki Contest, which I am participating in. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Do you need to put the previous National Bird at all?
• The scope for "National days" needs to be "rowgroup".
• The images in the table need alts.
• Most of the refs are missing archive links.
• Unless you can find some official source for this, you should remove the row about the National Dish. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Thank you so much for your feedback. Please can you make bullet 1 clearer for me, I couldn't quite understand that one. Heh, you literally read my mind for the national dish, I, for one, wanted to remove it initially, but I just thought I should hear from others. I'm taking that off and doing the other fixes you pointed out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Edit the section which has the table. Right at the top of the code for the table you'll see a line "|+". Add the table caption after the two symbols. Hope that explains it. If my explanation isn't clear then try looking at a recent FL promotion with a table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Thanks for explaining, I've fixed that and every other thing you pointed out at this time. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't checked the rest, but some archive links are still missing. Consider installing User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js, at least temporarily. It shows that and other problems with references. (Once you install it, there will be a "Show ref check" in the tools section of any wikipage. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Thanks for suggesting that tool, it helped me figure out the missing ones. I have fixed them now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  • "calls upon Nigerians to stand".
  • "where the country is considered a public matter with officials being elected." - needs a rewrite.
  • "was re-adopted on 29 May 2024,"
  • "colloquially called October First, " - can be eliminated from the sentence.
  • "subsequent detention and death became symbols of the struggle for democracy" - according to the source's headline, Abiola became the symbol, not his detention or death.
  • "military parades, religious services, and public speeches are common on this day." - Make this a separate sentence.
  • wikilink "decimalisation".
  • The scope for the National bird should be "row", not "rowgroup".
  • The notes section of the Naira should be reduced IMO.
  • "found abundantly in Nigeria's forests and on its riverbanks."
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    @MPGuy2824 Thank you so much, I fixed all now except for I don't think the notes section of the Naira is too extensive. I hope you'd be okay with that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    @MPGuy2824 Any updates on this one? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    To clarify my objection in the section below (SafariScribe's comments), I think you need to define the scope of this list somehow. It should be clear to a future editor whether a new symbol (whatever it is) should be a part of this particular list or not. Based on that definition, it will be clear whether to remove or keep the National Theatre. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    @MPGuy2824 Commenting on the completeness of this list, I'd say that let's take, for example, the National dish which I removed already, while not an officially declared national symbol, a President might just come tomorrow and declare it to be so, maybe not now. This also applies to any of those other symbols that some sources listed (which are not official national symbols yet). So, maybe indicating that the list might be expanded in the future would help?

    For the national theatre, like I said earlier, I am inclined to removing it because of several research I have done. I found two sources, this one at page 179, section "Official symbols", and this one at page 295, section 3.0. These two sources mention two more symbols which I will add to this list now, but none of them mentioned either the Seal of the President or the National Theatre as a national or official symbol. I, as a matter of fact, consider these sources more reliable than Legit.ng's list, because Legit.ng actually mentions the arm forces flag as a national symbol (while also mentioning the seal and the theatre), which is not exactly so, based on my current compilation and research. Legit is the only one that mentions the National Theatre as a symbol, while I found a source from a predatory journal which mentions the Seal of the President, but well, like I said, "predatory", I can't cite that in the first place. I'd be pinging @SafariScribe: in this regard because there is a clearer ground on removing the seal and the national theatre and adding the Constitution of Nigeria, National Identity Card, and the Nigerian Passport as national/official symbols. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    @Vanderwaalforces, if there is a consensus to remove them, then proceed. However, I have supported this list because it looks good to me and meets FL guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    @MPGuy2824 Just to note that I am done with this, you might want to look? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

    Support promotion for prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Drive by comments

• Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see how Ref 1 is verifying this sentence- "The national symbols of Nigeria represent the country's identity, heritage, and values, reflecting its cultural diversity and historical journey."
• Author name is missing for Refs 11, 24, 26, 36, 40.
• Ref 2 has two authors. Adrianna Simwa is not mentioned in the citation.
• Author names for Ref 25 might need some change. There are 2 authors- Shehnaz Khan and Trish Adudu.
• Central Bank of Nigeria is wikilinked in Ref 38, but not in Refs 10 and 14. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Nitro Absynthe Thank you so much for the comments. I have fixed all these as of this time. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

SafariScribe

• Interesting!

• The Naira symbol, ₦, is derived from the initial letter of Nigeria with a double stroke. needs a source
• Are you certain the symbols are complete? You seemed to be missing "The National Theatre"
• Also the "Seal of the Nigerian President": It was first used in 1979 during the regime of Shehu Shagari, and was not used from 1983 to 1999. The seal was then reinitiated in 1999. (Cited to this source)

Thank you for your comments. The sky is blue for example, does not need a source, right? I'm not sure The Naira symbol, ₦, is derived from the initial letter of Nigeria with a double stroke. is something that needs a source because it is obvious, but I have a source I can cite for that. The National Theatre and the seal of the President are not "national symbol" per se. The source you mentioned is the only that claims that. For example, the seal of the Nigerian President is more or less a child of the coat of arms, so I'd rather call the coat of arms the national symbol, than the seal. I was actually going to mention the seal in the coat of arms notes BTW, but I think I later changed my mind. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces, when you want to respond to a comment like his, you may want to reply each review, that the reviewer mayn't have to check them. Sometimes general review like the one above doesn't necessarily give the reviewer reply to a certain comment. One of the best markup is "*:". Cheers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• The Seal and the theatre are national symbols, and I will like to see them in the list before concluding. Aside that, the rest of the article looks good.

@SafariScribe: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all these by now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I am happy to support.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Safari Scribe: I don't see why the seal of the president and the national arts theatre are there in this list at all. We wouldn't put the Taj Mahal in a similar list for India, or the Saint Basil's Cathedral for Russia, even though they are popular cultural symbols. In addition, the seal of the president is essentially the national Coat of arms. What stops us from adding the flag of the Nigerian Navy to this list? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 I literally disputed SS, because I thought exactly the same thing you just said. But I later saw a source that claimed the Seal was a national symbol, but it was from a predatory journal I couldn’t cite. I definitely would not consider the Nigerian Navy’s flag as a national symbol.

Correctly pinging @SafariScribe. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824, of course the Nigerian Navy flag cannot be considered a national symbol. According to this source, a national or official symbol is something that makes a country unique and identifies it among others. While I am certain that the National Theatre is a national symbol, I have some doubts about the Sea of the President. However, since it identifies the President who is the supreme authority in the country, it can be considered a symbol as well (official). For example, many bishops have their own coat of arms, which helps identify them, just as the Pope does. I have no objections if anyone disputes the Seal of the Nigerian President as a national symbol. @Vanderwaalforces, the source I cited herein contains comprehensive information about these national symbols, so I recommend it during source reviewing. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe perhaps you’re not careful. The source you mentioned is one of the publications I cited already, while that source not only said “Here are some”, it also does not even mention the Seal of the Nigerian President nor the National Theatre as a symbol, at least, based on page 295. Like I said earlier, I found a source (which is not the one you mentioned) that mentioned the seal (not the national theatre) as a national symbol, but it is from a predatory journal and I couldn’t cite it. I am very inclined to revert back to my original version (without the seal and theatre), but let me hear from others. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces, provided that the Seal and National Theatre are properly sourced to a reliable source, I am good to go. If there is any argument about the Seal and Theatre, it should go to the talk page. Reverting to the original version may be disruptive as it was from a reviewer. Objections therefore should be a matter of whether the article meets the FL guidelines or not. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

asilvering - source check

• not source-check related, but are there really no other categories this could be in?
• I checked Special:Diff/1242228212.
• Martins 2019: absolutely not. The very first sentence is The name Nigeria is a combination of two words – Niger and Area. - a real howler! Then there's an obvious grammar error in the first paragraph ("haven" for "having"), not to mention that most of this is word soup. If there's any fact-checking or editorial oversight here they were all asleep at the wheel.
• Legit.ng: what makes this a reliable source? Isn't there a government source that would be better for this info?
• Flagmakers UK: not a great source for this info, just remove this one
• Tel Aviv Embassy, "Who designed the Nigerian flag?": I don't doubt that they're correct, but surely there's a better source for this, like a historian or a newspaper article?
• Odesola: er, this is someone complaining about how the coat of arms doesn't represent any of the things it's supposed to. It's an opinion piece. Not sure it belongs here?
• Tel Aviv Embassy, "The National Pledge": as before, surely correct, but also there's surely a better source?
• the eagle, reflects the country's strength and resilience source says "strength and vision". But I don't think this is a great source, anyway.

Ok, that's just the lead, but I'll stop here - I think it would be a good idea to revisit the sources used in this article and ensure it's only using the best possible ones. -- asilvering (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thanks for getting to this :)

• I have seen similar lists that are in one or two categories only.
• See a clearly defined editorial process for this journal here, so I consider it generally reliable, even though I agree with you on the grammar error.
• Legit.ng is generally reliable because it falls under the umbrella of WP:RS especially that they exhibit values of a WP:NEWSORG, so they are generally reliable.
• I removed this one, thank you.
• I replaced with better ones.
• Removed.
• This source is reliable but this piece is clearly labelled as an opinion, even though it states some facts about the Pledge. Would it not be reason to cite this for just that claim which it clearly and correctly verifies, no?
• I modified this one to better represent Legit.ng as it is a generally reliable source.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging asilvering again :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @Vanderwaalforces, I really think the Martins 2019 source is no good - the presence of an editorial board doesn't change that. For truly uncontroversial, nearly WP:SKYBLUE-type statements ("the emblem is displayed prominently on official documents"), well, I suppose I won't complain. But a source that just invents a fake fact in the very first sentence shouldn't be relied on for anything that could possibly be disputed. -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Phew, as of this writing, I have eliminated the Martins 2019 source. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, pinging @Asilvering here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review from Averageuntitleduser

I had written this up, and it's different enough that I might as well post it. And a prose comment to begin.

• These symbols include the national flag, coat of arms, anthem, and pledge, as well as the national flower, animal, currency, etc. — suggest replacing "etc." with a more formal expression like "among others".
• Supporting the shield are two white horses, symbolising dignity and strength. — remove “dignity”.
• reflecting the country's aspiration for harmony among its diverse ethnic groups. — unverified, and I think it's too detailed to infer. Suggest re-citing or removing.
• This emblem is displayed prominently on official documents, government buildings, and currency, serving as a powerful symbol of national identity, unity, and pride for Nigerians. and This anthem is performed at official events, national holidays, and significant ceremonies. — I feel uneasy with these two sentences being unsourced and encourage you to try to find citations. I might accept them if "prominently" and "serving as a powerful symbol of national identity, unity, and pride for Nigerians" were removed from the first, as these are less quantifiable, but I will have to think about it.
• Re-cite Investopedia per the RSN (and it would be best to source 1 January and 1958). The sources given by Investopedia or a newspaper would probably suffice.
• Grouping these together, as they should be fairly straightforward to re-cite to something like a news article. I can't find much evidence for the reliability of Financial Source, Symbols.com, Symbol Hunt, and CRW Flags, and their sites do little to convince me.

I will have another look through tonight. Otherwise, thanks for this well-written, accessible resource about Nigeria! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser Thanks for looking and the comments, I have actioned the above as of this time. For the point 4, I added appropriate sources that back the statements up. I replaced CRW Flags and Financial Source, removed Symbols.com and Symbol Hunt. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response! I'm returning from vacation and will be able to post more thorough comments soon. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser Hi there, finding out if you got a chance? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, yes! Here goes, based on this revision.

• I'm very skeptical of Martins 2019, and I don't think I can look past its isssues. The prose is confusing and riddled with grammatical errors, and the analysis doesn't convince me: "It is, therefore, imperative to exhibit the value of producing what we need, and consume what we produce, which is falling in love with made in Nigerian products, which logically implies fall in love with Nigeria which will drastically save the nation's foreign exchange, and thereby enhance the nation's foreign reserve." I'm just not sure it's very usable.
• I'm having trouble finding information about IMUNA, and "Najeriya" appears to be a more popular spelling in Hausa. Does a more authoritative reference work exist that could replace this source?
• The embassy sources, on their own merits, seem perfectly true and proportional. Still, I'd prefer news articles or governmental sources. Source 49, The Guardian article, can at least replace the last two instances of source 8. I suggest replacing the third instance of source 5 with the government source quoted by The Punch, reverifying the paragraph, and finding a source for the 1960 adoption. Source 7 and the first two instances of source 5 could then be replaced by others in the article.
• Fold sources 18 and 21, the two from Google Arts & Culture, into source 3.
• Source 20 fails verification.
• The third instance of source 21 fails verification.
• Suggest replacing source 33 with this article from The Guardian and revising as necessary. Garko seems to have written for The Guardian, but Applied Worldwide isn't convincing me as much.
• Sorry to hassle you about this, but I suggest replacing sources 40 and 41 with an article or two, perhaps profiling the Naira, from a WP:NGRS newspaper. That way, they may be more straightforward and up-to-date.
• Suggest removing source 43 and moving source 42 a sentence forward to replace it. This government source seems a bit more apt.

Perhaps all of my remaining suggestions are related to source formatting. Some authors are missing or generic, some titles are mismatched or contain extra metadata, some dates of publishing are missing or innacurate, websites or publishers are inconsistently linked or contain extra metadata or are missing, language parameters are missing, and some works could be placed in the "Bibliography" section; I think you get the gist. Of course, on their own, these are fairly simple fixes! Just be sure to carefully look over the citation parameters. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: courtesy ping in case you haven't seen these comments. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser Snap! I'd get to these in few hours. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser

• Can you tell me how the statement you just quoted is a problem... I mean, not just to the FL candidate but in a more general sense. I am reemphasising that I do not find a glaring issue with this source that will render it totally unusable. Again, it has a clear editorial standard and that is important thing a peer-reviewed journal should have.
• It is a non-profit, educational organization formally associated with the United Nations Department of Global Communications... according to their website. I find that to be sufficiently reliable. I also cannot find another suitable source, the only one I found got their information from Wikipedia. Should that be removed entirely then?

Dialing back on this one. The source should be okay, and just based on ha:Najeriya, it seems the current spelling is common enough. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed.
• I removed this entirely
• The only way to verify this is https://www.nigerianembassy.co.il/the-national-flower-of-nigeria-costus-spectabilis/ which I have added back.

I am okay with this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Done.
• These clearly and correctly verifies what we want to be verified. I could not verify those with newspapers, hence, why I used those. If you find any that do, please I'd appreciate it.

Silly for me to phrase it as if such sources exist, though I managed to find a replacement for the first and another for the second. I do think these are worthwhile improvements, though I apologize for being so pedantic. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• I did not attend to this last one because it is already very confusing for me. I did extensive research here and do not find any problems here at all. In fact, sourcing for the Naira was seriously difficult for me, removing and replacing right now does not help me.

Ah, no need to hunt down sources. What I mean is that the government source also verifies the content of the next sentence. I suggest moving it there and cutting the other source. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

For the general citation fixes, I had done that, but it all bugged up again since I started modifying the sources, nothing to worry about there, I will go through them again, most of them are currently okay. Mostly the newly added sources need these fixes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see the other source reviewer has the same problem with Martins 2019. @Vanderwaalforces, I'm not sure what you mean by "has a clear editorial standard". You mean that it has an editorial board? That hardly matters, if the editorial board doesn't have good standards. Not all editorial boards are created equal, and some are downright predatory. Again, there was an easily verifiable mistake in the very first sentence! I don't think this source could possibly survive review at WP:RSN. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser as of this writing, I have eliminated the Martins 2019 source. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: Thanks for your patience with me and willingness to revisit the sources here, especially Martins 2019. I have added some replies above and will give this list a final lookthrough. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

So what do you guys (@Averageuntitleduser, Asilvering) think of this already? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: On the whole? Looking through the article again, I feel a support is in reach. What's remaining are my last two replies to your bullet points above and the general formatting fixes. I don't see many other major issues. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser I attended to your comments and made copyedits to the citations. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: Nice. I edited the citations for formatting as well and have one last suggestion. I think it would be wise to place A History of Nigeria and Nigerian Culture and Citizenship Education in a "Bibliography" section. That way page numbers and repeating citations won't be an issue. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the refs list is in much better shape now than when I first reviewed it, @Vanderwaalforces. I don't have time to do a properly thorough check but I no longer see any obvious reason to oppose and I'm happy to be counted as a piggyback support once @Averageuntitleduser gives you the all-clear. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Asilvering: and @Vanderwaalforces: the sources seem to be in good shape; I have spot-checked around half of them. Happy to support. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:08, 11 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC) [21].

---

List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Every decade, the NFL chooses an all-time team composed of the best players from the previous 10 years. 45 Packers' players have been named to one of these teams, with the Packers having at least one player on each decade team. As always, happy to address any comments or concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "did change from decade-to-decade" - I don't think those hyphens are needed
• That's it!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, changed! Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell (or rowgroup if the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan), e.g. ! rowspan="5" | [[NFL 1920s All-Decade Team|1920s]] becomes !scope=rowgroup rowspan="5" | [[NFL 1920s All-Decade Team|1920s]].
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 14:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot it PresN. Thanks for the reminder, fixed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• 2010s Team but 1960s team. I think it's better to make this consistent throughout the text.
  • Fixed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• In the See also section, the last item has extra indentation. Is that intended?
  • It was. I do that sometimes to show the relationship of articles in the See also. So in this case, the higher level article is NFL All-Time Team, while List of Green Bay Packers NFL Anniversary All-Time Team selections is a related subtopic. Let me know if this makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That's all I saw, Gonzo_fan2007. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alavense! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It does make sense, Gonzo fan2007. Thanks for the reply. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

I don't really have anything to add, so good job Gonzo! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, I never followed up on this, but I just wanted to see if you were actually supporting the nomination or just noting a passed source review. Cheers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Shoot, sorry for my lack of clarity @Gonzo fan2007, I'll make it clear that I support! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:50, 9 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC) [22].

---

List of cities in Zaporizhzhia Oblast

Nominator(s): Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Another Ukraine oblast city list; this uses a similar format to the one from List of cities in Donetsk Oblast, and its northern counterpart and FL, List of cities in Luhansk Oblast, and is also an oblast of which the majority of its territory (and cities) is occupied by Russian troops. Much of the formatting and prose was honed in Dantheanimator's FLC entry Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Donetsk Oblast/archive1, and thus should be mostly fine already. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Russian forces occupied all cities located in the Berdiansk, Melitopol, and Vasylivka raions, and three cities in Polohy Raion" - any reason why Raion is capitalised at the end there, when it isn't anywhere else?
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Raion is capitalized at the end because it is part of the name of the district (i.e. Polohy Raion and not Polohy raion), and not before as it is a common noun and only a descriptor, not trying to act as a part of the name of either of the three mentioned raions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions

As stated in the nom, a lot of the content is derived from the already promoted FL List of cities in Luhansk Oblast and the currently open FL List of cities in Donetsk Oblast so a lot of the material in this list has gone through considerable oversight/editing. I also went ahead with the support of Flemmish Nietzsche and fixed/improved everything I noticed in the article (mostly just minor things like ce and expanding refs). That said, here's the only thing I could think of to suggest adding:

• When viewing the list from desktop, at least from my laptop device, it looks like there's enough space for one additional image next to the table. I think this is completely optional but I feel like it would be a great addition to include this image of Enerhodar with a caption along the lines of "Enerhodar, fourth most populous city and site of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant"

Having thoroughly reviewed the page and having a deep familiarity with the quality of the content, I support promoting this to FL! Thanks Flemmish Nietzsche for your work on this list!! :) Dan the Animator 20:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Image added. I also made a minor change to one of your edits, as the two captured cities specifically mentioned, Meltitopol and Berdiansk, are not in Polohy Raion, (the last mentioned raion where Russia has captured cities) but as the "including" refers to all prior mentioned occupied raions, are actually in the eponymous Melitopol and Berdiansk raions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Flemmish Nietzsche! About the wording for that sentence, how does this sound?

• After 24 February 2022, during Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces occupied three cities in Polohy Raion, and all cities located in the Berdiansk, Melitopol, and Vasylivka raions. In the oblast's occupied territory, de facto Russian officials use the same five raions as Ukraine, while Melitopol (the oblast's most populous city controlled by Russia) serves as the capital for the Russian administration.

I don't think its necessary to explicitly state that Melitopol and Berdiansk are occupied by Russia since that's already indicated by the previous sentence (e.g. "all cities located in Berdiansk, Melitopol" includes Berdiansk & Melitopol). Also don't think it's necessary either to say in the lead that they're the third and second most populous cities considering the table already shows this clearly.

For the reasons mentioned on my last reply on the article talkpage, its useful to state that Russian officials use the same subdivisions so I added in that part. I haven't done the most thorough source search but I think this source (taken from ref #56 under the Administrative divisions subsection in Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast) should be sufficient to verify/support the claim about Russia using the same five raions. Let me know what you think about the above and please ping me on reply for anything! Cheers, Dan the Animator 03:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Flemmish Nietzsche added in the above edit here since this' been here a while but feel free to let me know if it should be changed at all. Dan the Animator 20:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Averageuntitleduser

• "Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Ukraine" — see MOS:GEOLINK
• Russian forces occupied three cities in Polohy Raion, — remove comma

I can't find anything else! The prose reads very clearly. I had a look at the images and found no reason to doubt the own work liscenses. However, in the alt texts of the cities, try not to repeat the captions. Instead, lean just slightly more into broadly describing the image. My go at the first: "Arterial road at night between mid-rise buildings, street lights, and trees". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Happy to support. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Returning for a source review as per a suggestion on WP:DISCORD pertaining to the WP:DCWC. All sources appear reliable for what they site, and nicely done with the title translations. Checked sources 6, 7, 8, 16, and 17, and they all pass; I suppose "the oblast's most populous city controlled by Russia" is quite an obvious statement. Formatting suggestions below, looking at this revision.

• Suggest cutting the author parameters in sources 2 and 9 and instead making them the website paramaters.
• Change the website parameter in source 3 to Ukraina Moloda.
• Change the website parameter in source 4 to All About Accounting.
• Add language parameters to sources 5 and 15.

No further issues. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

All done. The author parameters were changed to |publisher so as to not create a duplicate with the existing |website parameter in the cite templates. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice. Support on sources. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Neither the first caption nor the two notes need a full stop, given that they are not full sentences.
• 10 cities are occupied by Russian forces, while two - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". I'd go with ten cities are occupied.

That's what I saw, Flemmish Nietzsche. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense Both suggestions implemented. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Nice work. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:37, 9 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC) [23].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1972

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

With the 1971 list now having a couple of supports, let's continue our look at the biggest mellow hits of the 1970s. There's some songs here that I personally don't know at all but also some all-time classics, including the first big hit version of that well-known song "Ken Lee" :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - The sentence I usually quibble about is already correctly put here so I am happy to support this directly. Great work as always. "American Pie" (which seems to be a song?) should be in single quotes in ref 2, though.--NØ 17:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The Roberta Flack image seems to have two dates associated with it: 1995 and 2010. I'd guess 1995 is more accurate. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• @MPGuy2824: - amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Why is it the year the picture was taken specified for two images but not for the others? I'd make it consistent.
• Besides, in the one about Roberta Flack, there's a space missing between the "c." and the year.

That's what I saw, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: - I have a tendency to put dates only for images that were taken many years before or after the period under discussion, to make it clear that, for example, Don McLean wasn't an old grey-haired man in 1972. But I guess inconsistency can be irritating so I added the others too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, as always. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

Source review in progress. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Some comments:

• All of the sources used are reliable enough for the information they are used to cite.
• Ref 4 should be marked as limited access. (Arguably, this could also apply to every ref from 10 through 62—although, at least on my laptop, the cited information is visible just above the paywall that obscures positions below #1.)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, Nilsson's version of "Without You" also made the 2024 update of the RS 500 songs list.
• The link for ref 9 isn't working; Billboard's online archive of their year-end AC charts only goes back to 2006. I imagine either worldradiohistory.com or Whitburn would have something to verify this information?
  • I can't find the issue of Billboard with the year-end charts so I just removed that part -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• I couldn't help but notice that refs 42, 50, and 55 are lacking archive links. While they aren't mandatory, every other website ref in the list has an archive link, so I would suggest adding archive links for those three refs for consistency.

• Just ran the bot again but for whatever reason it once again hasn't archived those links..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Using a random number generator to determine which refs to check, I spot-checked refs 1, 2, 5, 17, 19, 24, 25, 29, 34, 38, 43, 50, and 58.
  • Ref 1 does verify the different names the chart has taken over the years, but I'm not seeing how it—or at least the corresponding page—verifies the methodology (playlists submitted by easy listening radio stations and sales reports submitted by stores).
    • Second source added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Ref 2: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 5: Passes the spot check, but the link should be marked as dead.
    • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Ref 17: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 19: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 24: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 25: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 29: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 34: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 38: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 43: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 50: «thumbs up»
  • Ref 58: «thumbs up»

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: - thanks for your review, see above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No prob, Chris! Everything looks good to me, and I'm pleased to support on sources. The oversight by IABot is not a dealbreaker. For what it's worth, while I can't seem to find a year-end ranking, page TA-39 of the December 30 issue does mention in passing that "Song Sung Blue" was the "Top Easy Listening Single" of the year – I'll defer to your judgment as to whether that is sufficient to re-add the mention of it to the table. By the way, it's no pressure, but if you have any time or interest, I do have a rather old FLC that could use some feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• "Sammy Davis, Jr." -> Remove the comma
• Baby, Don't Get Hooked on Me is a redirect to Baby Don't Get Hooked on Me. Source also shows no comma

I chose to also do a source review, because they're my general preference, and I had no issues with sourcing. I did find the above very minor issues, so I'm supporting with the assumption these will be addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - above couple of points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 3 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC) [24].

---

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2018)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's another Inkigayo list. The fourth one that I am nominating in this series. This list follows the same format as the previous three and the nine Music Bank lists. -- EN-Jungwon 11:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The chart measured digital performance in domestic online music services" => "In 2018, the chart measured digital performance in domestic online music services"
• "Three boy groups had ranked two singles at number one in 2018" => "Three boy groups ranked two singles at number one in 2018"
• "The four song spent" => "The four songs spent"
• "making them the artist with the most wins of the year" => "making them the act with the most wins of the year" ("artist" can really only be used to refer to a soloist)
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude, all done. Always appreciate your comments at FLC. Thanks again. -- EN-Jungwon 05:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images properly sourced & licensed
• All images properly captioned
• All images relevant to the text
• All images have alt text except for the two with Paul Kim and Jennie

Thanks for your work again @EN-Jungwon and @Explicit! Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Alt text added. Thanks for catching that. -- EN-Jungwon 01:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction pinging. -- EN-Jungwon 00:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Support on images! Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by MPGuy2824

• Since the key is a table, it too would need to follow MOS:DTAB. In particular there need to be row scopes added to the columns with the symbols. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Done. -- EN-Jungwon 00:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  • "were announced as new hosts beginning the February 18 broadcast." to "were announced as new hosts from the February 18 broadcast."

  Support in advance, since I think you'll get this fixed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for the support. -- EN-Jungwon 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Although I can't read Korean-language references for any content checks, the cites all appear reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Giants2008, should I add trans-title to the sources? -- EN-Jungwon 01:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Kang left the show on November 4, 2018 - No need for "2018".
• 10 songs collected trophies for three weeks - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure".
• chart topper - Maybe chart-topper better?
• Three boy groups ranked two singles at number one in 2018; - I think a colon would be better than a semicolon.
• Same for Red Velvet had three singles rank number one on the chart;
• Meanwhile, girl group Twice ranked four singles at number one on the chart in 2018 achieved with "Heart Shaker", "What Is Love?", "Dance the Night Away", and "Yes or Yes" - This reads a bit weird to me. Maybe something along the lines of Meanwhile, girl group Twice ranked four singles at number one on the chart in 2018 with "Heart Shaker", "What Is Love?", "Dance the Night Away", and "Yes or Yes"?

That's what I saw, EN-Jungwon and Explicit. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Darn, EN-Jungwon hasn't been online for five days... Well, they're usually good about taking care of this stuff when they're back. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh sorry for the late reply. I'll have this done by tomorrow. -- EN-Jungwon 15:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense, all done. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 00:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice work. Support. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:12, 6 September 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC) [25].

---

List of songs recorded by the Linda Lindas

Nominator(s): – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️), --NØ 17:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list, now that I've secured three Supports for my FLC of the Linda Lindas discography. Feel free to leave any comments if you don't think this is ready, but I believe it is. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 17:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• "The Linda Lindas have recorded 17 songs for album or EP releases, 7 songs as singles, and 5 songs outside albums, totaling 29 songs. Among the 29 songs, 7 of them are covers, and most were produced by Carlos de la Garza, the father of band members Lucia and Mila." - Exact counts like this require a secondary source; we're not allowed to just add a count from our in-wiki table since it could be incomplete. Either way, these numbers will keep on changing and would be a pain to maintain, so I suggest removing them.
• "The band started out as a cover band, playing music from multiple bands such as Le Tigre and the Go-Go's, whose "Tonite" they later covered." - I am a bit confused by the structure of the lead currently. The first paragraph seems to go into a summary of their overall career, and in the second paragraph it is back to describing how they started out?
• You should add some information about the musical genres and lyrical themes explored on the first album. Overall, the lead could deal with some restructuring.--NØ 12:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MaranoFan: what do you think now? I've restructured the lead and included info on genres and themes. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support - Looks superb now. Kudos on the quick improvements!--NØ 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image could be made larger
• "started out as a cover band, playing music from multiple bands such as Le Tigre and the Go-Go's, whose "Tonite" they later covered" - this reads a bit weirdly - they started out as a band covering the likes of the Go-Gos, whom they covered later? Might be worth adding a little more context to their covering the Go-Gos "later"
• Also, the word "multiple" isn't needed
• "the Linda Lindas' namesake" - I would change this to something like "for which the band was named"
• "The album genre has been classified" => "The album's genre has been classified"
• ""Racist, Sexist Boy" has commonly been compared to riot grrrl sound" => ""Racist, Sexist Boy" has often been compared to the riot grrrl sound"
• "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to release in 2024" => "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024"
• Songwriter(s) column sorts on forename. It should sort on surname
• Song and album titles starting with "The" should sort based on the next word
• Some of the image captions need sources that the song in question is a cover of the band named
• "The Linda Lindas remixed "The News" by Paramore for a remix album entitled Re: This Is Why." - if they simply remixed the original song, this doesn't come under the usual definition of a song they "recorded" so I don't believe it belongs on this list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done; implemented all of your suggestions, thanks! Anything else? – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 17:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do a source review and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Sharpest Lives: comments below. Feel free to challenge. I reserve the right to spot something later! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Notes b and c should have citations.

• They seem to have some currently.--NØ

• The band's own Bandcamp site is cited few times, but only for straightforward facts, so that seems fine.
• I don't think that Film Music Reporter is suitable as a source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#Film_Music_Reporter_-_Reliability
• For consistency, Dork should be wikilinked to Dork (magazine)
• For consistency, Bigmouth should be wikilinked (redlink)
• For consistency, either remove the two ISSN's, or add ISSNs to other sources that have them.
• I think "Gabba Gabba!, Yo" and "Linda Lindas, The" should be re-ordered to their "natural" form, e.g. using the author rather than first/last parameters.
• Some of the sources, e.g. YouTube, Apple Music, aren't ideal, but they are OK for the info being supported here.
• Spot check on "most were produced by Carlos de la Garza, the father of band members Lucia and Mila." - no issues.
• Spot check on "In 2021, the band went viral with a performance of "Racist, Sexist Boy" and subsequently signed with the Los Angeles-based label Epitaph Records" - no issues
• Spot checks on "Growing Up is centered on themes of growing up, discovering oneself,[16] and anxieties that arise in adolescence" - no issues
• Spot check on "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024" - no issues

General comments

• Is there any info available about unreleased recordings? (Out-takes, etc.)

• I assume that information on unreleased recordings would not be available for artists this new, but these are generally not present on lists when they pass FLCs anyways and are usually put there by fans later.--NØ

• " the Linda Lindas have appeared on cover, remix, and tribute albums, as well as soundtracks." - phrasing suggests to me there are multiple appearances on each type, which doesn't seem to be the case. (e.g. only one tribute album and one soundtrack)

• Rephrased. I am counting three soundtracks between Harriet the Spy, Yo Gabba Gabbaland!, and Totally Killer, though.--NØ

• "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024. It spawned three singles:" doesn't quite seem right to me, given that the album is not scheduled ti be released until October. Maybe soemthing like "Three tracks that will be on the album have been released as singles" (but more smoothly written)?
• Feels like the heading for the main table should be something like "Songs released by the Linda Lindas" rather than "Name of song, songwriter(s), original release and year of release", but I might be wrong.

• Current heading seems to be consistent with other lists.--NØ

• Overall, great work!

• Just pinging you about the above @The Sharpest Lives. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty busy atm but have tried to do some of the suggestions. Yall feel free to implement them yourselves if you wish. {{The Sharpest Lives|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @The Sharpest Lives, I'm just following up on some of our old noms. We do our best to give leeway but we also don't want to let nominations linger with unaddressed concerns for too long. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed these in the nominator's absence, BennyOnTheLoose.--NØ 14:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hey man im josh is the use of <br> between citations OK per MOS:DTAB? I think in general, breaks are to be avoided. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Based on the link that you point to @BennyOnTheLoose, you are correct. @PresN would know better about how serious we are about its usage, but it does seem like this is something we'd want to remove. I don't see any benefit to using line breaks to make the references appear under one another instead of beside each other. Do you have any thoughts as to whether this is necessary or an improvement of any sort @MaranoFan? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's fine to use <br> tags like that, DTAB means don't use it in two cells next to each other to make a fake second row across the cells. In this case, you're just forcing a cell to stay narrow, it still reads correctly. --PresN 14:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to MaranoFan, Hey man im josh, and PresN. I think the only thing pending now is inconsistent use of title case, i.e. it should be used for the following. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Meet the punk-powered school girls rising to rock's feminist forefront
• Viral teen punk band The Linda Lindas sign record deal
• THE LINDA LINDAS(ザ・リンダ・リンダズ)が 待望のデビュー・アルバム「GROWING UP'
• The Linda Lindas make their TV debut with 'Racist, Sexist Boy'
• Teen rockers fire back at anti-Asian comments with a viral punk anthem
• The Linda Lindas have announced their second album, No Obligation, for October
• From The Amazon Original Movie (Not sure about this one)

Just title-cased these!--NØ 04:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this in depth @BennyOnTheLoose. Just wanted to ping to see if all your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Pass for source review. All looks fine now, Hey man im josh and MaranoFan. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Shouldn't rock en español be italicized?
• Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024. It spawned three singles That reads a bit weirdly, doesn't it?
• Being inside the "Songs" section, I would only expect to find links to each letter and not to "See also", "Notes" and "References".
• There's a citation needed tag in the table.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Should be all done I think, Alavense.--NØ 14:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thank you for the edits, MaranoFan. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Promoting, and also marking MaranoFan as a co-nominator since they took over the nomination. Let me know if you want me to take you back off. --PresN 21:38, 6 September 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) 00:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC) [26].

---

List of cities in Manitoba

Nominator(s): B3251_(talk) 16:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Nominating in similar fashion to my previous nomination for List of cities in New Brunswick. Please let me know if I should expand upon or change anything and I'll be more than happy to do so. Thanks, reviewers! B3251_(talk) 16:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "are formed under the 1996 Municipal Act" => "are formed under the terms of the 1996 Municipal Act"
• "In order to label an urban municipality as a city in Manitoba" => "In order for an urban municipality in Manitoba to be labelled as a city"
• "the municipal governments of each city contains a mayor;" => "the municipal government of each city contains a mayor;"
• "the two largest cities has wards," =>"the two largest cities have wards,"
• "in both population and by land area" => "both in population and by land area"
• "which has 749,607 residents and spanning 461.78 square kilometres" => "which has 749,607 residents and spans 461.78 square kilometres"
• "The most recent incorporated city in the province was Morden," => "The most recent city to be incorporated in the province was Morden,"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

   Done B3251_(talk) 22:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Verification check MrLinkinPark333

Prose

• "sixth largest by land area" - Needs an extra source to specify the territories as it's eighth overall. Stats Canada combines the provinces with the territories
• "Cities, towns and villages... minimum population of 7,500" - Needs page numbers (page 1 and page 27).
• "although Flin Flon, part of which is in the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan," - Stats Canada lists this as Flin Flon (Part) but does not specify the other part is in Saskatchewan.
• Manitoba's capital and largest city -> Manitoba's largest city (as Stats Canada doesn't specify that Winnipeg is the capital of Manitoba).
• the two largest cities has wards," -> two cities have wards (as the election source doesn't state population).

Table

• Citation #9 (MHS Resources: Manitoba Communities) doesn't mention any of the incorporation dates and can be removed. The source next to each date are sufficient enough for verification.
• The Regions need a citation.
• Citation needed for the note saying Flin Flon is in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
• Pop. densities need a slight fix based on Stats Canada source: Flin Flon 376.1, Morden 609.6, Winkler 663.1

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 Partially done: I've gone ahead and made some changes, but I could not find an extra source in land area. Please let me know what can be done about that. Regarding the regions, my assumption is that it would be WP:SKYBLUE because this can be verified just based on their geographic locations, and is what I'm guessing to be the reason why my also recently-nominated List of cities in New Brunswick passed without requiring citations for the counties each city belong to in there. B3251_(talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

In regards to land area, I think an extra source that specifically states the names of the 10 provinces could help. This could be placed adjacent to the Stats Canada source, as it says Canada, provinces and territories. For the regions, I'm not sure if it's pass common knowledge per "easily verified by a non-specialized map". This doesn't have regions while this uses different regions..Otherwise:

• The Government of Manitoba source also needs page 1 to show the 1996 Municipal Act..
• sixth largest by land area" -> might want to reword to "sixth largest province by land area" to avoid confusion.
• The Canadian Encyclopedia source can be reused for the note for Flin Flon in the table.
• The Population densities still need adjusting.

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333:  Done B3251_(talk) 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You're almost there:

• The archived Government of Manitoba source from 2009 doesn't list Winkler and Morden as cities of Pembina Valley.
• The archived Government of Manitoba source uses Northern and Winnipeg Capital regions, instead of Northern Manitoba and Winnipeg Metropolitan. Perhaps an extra source with these names can be added here, especially since Winnipeg Capital was renamed Winnipeg Metropolitan.
• I'm not sure if the archived Government of Manitoba source is 100% clear that Selkrik is also in Winnipeg Capital. The two sources showing Interlake & Winnipeg Capital could help here.
• Still need a source about sixth largest province to show the ten provinces. This can be placed next to the Stats Canada source.

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333

• The archived Government of Manitoba source from 2009 doesn't list Winkler and Morden as cities of Pembina Valley.

If I were to guess for this situation, the map was most likely initially created before both cities were incorporated. I just used the Pembina Valley region map to clarify this because it shows both communities.

Regarding the other sources, I'm having a difficult time with finding sources for specifically the names and I'm both confused and unsure of what to do. One moment please. B3251_(talk) 14:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@B3251: Have you addressed all of @MrLinkinPark333's concerns yet? Just following up, not pressuring or rushing you. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hey man im josh, almost. I've had trouble with finding sources to address the following of MrLinkinPark333's concerns:

• Source for Manitoba being the sixth-largest province in land area, with a specific focus on the ten provinces.
• Source that specifically names certain regions exactly like their article counterparts: Winnipeg Metropolitan Region and Northern Manitoba.

B3251_(talk) 20:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

With the sixth-largest province in land area, yoo can keep the Statistics Canada source and add a source naming the ten provinces next to it. If you're having trouble finding sources using Winnipeg Metropolitan Region and Northern Manitoba, you could use the Government of Manitoba naming instead and pipe them to the article names. I have been in your situation before with having difficultly finding exact sources. It's not just you :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 thanks for the advice, will try to do soon B3251_(talk) 10:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not following up on this yet, I'll look for the sources this week. B3251_(talk) 19:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @B3251. Please consider this a gentle request to finish up on addressing @MrLinkinPark333's concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 done, apologies for the delay B3251_(talk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Support - Thank you for working on this continuously. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Could you add a reference that helps verify note a? I understand you explain it in the lead, but it could be beneficial to name the references and add them to the note
• Consider changing 2021 Census of Population to 2021 Canadian census, so match the target article
• Can we come up with a better title than "total cities" for the row that sums up the stats?
• Consider adding a note, possibly in a note next to "Manitoba" in the bottom row of the table, that explains the total population includes xyz
• Ref 9 – Inconsistent when compared ot the other city website sources, move the entry for the "publisher" parameter to "website" for consistency among similar references
• Ref 10 – Publisher is unnecessary and adding it makes it inconsistent with ref 1.
• Ref 1 – Move the entry for publisher to the website or work parameter (based on Template:Cite web, this seems more appropriate)

That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Partially done: first three done, please let me know what you think. I have a couple of questions:

• Regarding your request to add a note explaining total population including 'xyz', do you mean that the total population of Manitoba includes the listed cities?
• Ref 9 can be replaced with news sources such as 1 / 2 (same agency). Let me know if you think this would be preferable.

I'll get everything else done once I hear back just for extra clarity. Thanks! B3251_(talk) 17:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@B3251: Sorry, I had a lot of pings and I missed a few I needed to respond to. As for the point of clarification, I was suggesting a note to clarify where the rest of the total, not including the listed cities, comes from. For ref 9, the source itself isn't the issue, it's that you used publisher, which default to non-italicized text, whereas your other citations to city websites used the website/work parameter, which defaults to italicized. I made the change myself though, which means the references to City of X are now consistently italicized. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Hi josh, thanks for clarifying for me and also making that adjustment. Regarding the clarification note for Manitoba's total population, would you consider it acceptable for the note to state that the rest of the population comes from Manitoba's other municipalities etc? Thanks, B3251_(talk) 16:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine @B3251. I just want a note that answers the inevitable question of "where's the rest of that population number come from?" Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @B3251 as a follow up. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Sorry, I haven't gotten around to making updates. I'll try finishing this tomorrow. B3251_(talk) 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Sorry for being late in notifying you, but I did finish this soon after I made the comment. B3251_(talk) 14:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Manitoba currently has 137 municipalities, out of which ten are categorized as cities - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• Could something be said about regions? They are introduced in the table with no previous mention.
• the smallest by land area is Dauphin which covers - A comma is missing before "which".
• I think it's a bit weird to have Population (2016) under 2021 Canadian census.
• Nothing is said about the functions of cities or municipalities at large. I think that would come in handy.

That's what I saw, B3251. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense Changed two of these, though I have some comments in response to other points which can correspond more with List of cities in New Brunswick, which I had passed around 1-2 months ago.

• Regions: I'm unsure if regions have to be mentioned prior because the list is about cities specifically, not the regions. The regions are just included in the table to show where geographically the cities are located.
• I had this with the New Brunswick list which was fine (though someone recently changed this with 2023 redistribution data instead). The 2016 population is included under the 2021 census because the Canadian census includes the 2016 data themselves for population comparison.

Thanks, B3251_(talk) 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

I still view this as a fork for List of municipalities in Manitoba as I did with the New Brunswick page. Perhaps if it included something different like former cities? As it is, it's just copied from the main list. Also splitting the gallery seems like an odd choice. Mattximus (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@B3251: Please respond to the above when you get a chance. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense @Hey man im josh I feel that Hwy43 explained this better than I ever could in my nomination for New Brunswick. If it seems necessary to include former cities I can, but the New Brunswick nomination, which has two less cities than this list, ultimately passed without adding former cities (mostly just two cities that amalgamated with Saint John). B3251_(talk) 17:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess you intended to ping Mattximus here. Alavense (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I read the previous nomination and it was suggested by another user to add both former cities, and explain why some municipalities have the qualifications for a city but are not cities. Both suggestions were not made before promotion. I would echo that these should be included in this article and the other one before promotion. Otherwise it's just a fork. Mattximus (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I do still think that the way Wikipedia handles Canadian cities vs. municipalities lists needs some rethinking, but given prior precedents, this meets the criteria for promotion. I would urge the nominator to differentiate the cities lists as bit more from the municipalities lists. Promoting. --PresN 21:38, 6 September 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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC) [27].

---

List of rhinolophids

Nominator(s): PresN 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey all, it's bats list #2, and mammal list #43: Rhinolophidae. These are the 92 species of horseshoe bats, cousins of the leaf-nosed bats of the last list. Basically, it's a wide array of tiny bats (the size of your thumb, or at most two thumbs) with funny little faces. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family... though reading between the lines of the academic-speak, the scientific consensus is that this family's taxonomy is a hot mess, and by 2100 it could be anywhere from 70 to 130 species once they all agree what a "species" is. In the meantime, we'll stick with 92. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Formosan lesser horseshoe bat has no habitat listed
• Same for Imaizumi's horseshoe bat
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Whoops, both filled in now (as Unrecorded). Thanks! --PresN 16:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

AK

• "mammal order Chiroptera" should be "mammalian order"
• "Chiroptera, and part" Comma unnecessary.
• "microbat suborder grouping" Doesn't make sense, should be either "microbat suborder Microchiroptera" or just "microbat suborder".
• "rhinolophid, or a" Comma unnecessary.
• "wing lengths ranging from the" Currently, this reads as if the wing length ranges from the FLH bat to the GWH bat. I'd change it to "ranging from 3 cm (1 in) in the Formosan...to 8 cm (3 in) in the great woolly horseshoe bat."
• "Twelve species..., and Hill's horseshoe bat is..., collectively making up almost fifteen percent of the species in the family." Doesn't seem to be grammatically correct, I'd split the sentence up and change to "These collectively make up almost fifteen percent of the species in the family"
• Great work overall, that's all I got. AryKun (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @AryKun: All done, thanks! --PresN 22:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• I checked a handful of map licenses; they're probably all fine.
• Map Captions: ""Southesastern" (twice). Indo-Chinese lesser brown horseshoe Bat has two problems: lowercase "Bat", and the map caption says "Southeastern Africa".
• For File:Rhinolophus mossambicus.jpg, Plos.org is safe, but ... I'm not sure, I was expecting to see some kind of tag saying that it came from Plos.org. Same goes for File:Rhinolophus smithersi.jpg. File:Rhinolophus pearsonii.jpg is also safe, but I was expecting either a FlickrBot tag or a US-PD tag.
• For the other image licenses, FWIW, my tally is: 10 are labeled as "own work", 17 as public domain (incl. from the Biodiversity Center and one from forestryimages.org), 6 as iNaturalist.org, and 2 as FlickrBot. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Dank: Bat and captions fixed, added a PLOS template to the two that needed it and a PD-US to the other. Thanks! --PresN 01:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• You know the drill.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations (but I was in a hurry when I checked the 4th column; all I can say is that it's not missing anything, but the reviews above seem to have covered it).
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. My image review is above.
• 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Fixed one caption myself, looks good to go. Great series! - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Support. Honestly you're insanely consistent in your references, and it leaves me in awe lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: It's because I generate the IUCN ones using a custom program that also generates the base table, so they can't not be consistent, and the book cites are just copy-pasting with different page numbers most of the time. --PresN 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh that makes a lot of sense! Good to know :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 3 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [28].

---

List of Intercontinental Cup winning managers

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

After some hard work on this list, I now believe it meets the criteria. This will form part of the Lists of UEFA club competition winning managers topic if it passes here and would be a long overdue addition. My current list has four supports, so I'm assuming it's ok to nominate this one now. Thanks in advance for the comments. NapHit (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption: "Carlos Bianchi, pictured playing for Vélez Sarsfield won the competition a record three times." => "Carlos Bianchi, pictured playing for Vélez Sarsfield, won the competition a record three times."
• Link UEFA and CONMEBOL
• Link "played over two legs" to two-legged tie
• "renaming it Toyota Cup" - no reason for italics
• Link FIFA
• "Lula became the first manager to win successive titles leading Santos to victory in 1962 and 1963" => "Lula became the first manager to win successive titles, leading Santos to victory in 1962 and 1963"
• "Argentine managers have won the competition the most times" => "Argentine managers won the competition the most times"
• Footnote to explain why there is no winning manager recorded for two of the years should be a footnote, not mixed in with the references. Also don't use "wasn't" in the footnote, write it in full.
• Per MOS:BOLD, bold should not be used to highlight something. Use colour + symbol -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments, @ChrisTheDude:, I've addressed all the comments. Regarding the bold, I've looked at Bianchi's profile and he's not managed for 10 years. So safe to assume he's no longer active as a manager. NapHit (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007 (including source review)

• In the 1979 row, the managers should each have their own row so they can be properly sorted when using the table sort function.
  • I removed the second manager as it seems he was the assistant to the other one, not co-manager. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• In the managers with multiple titles table, recommend adding an emdash to the blank cells.
  • Done NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• On the last two tables, I don't think you need to duplicate the section title and table title. You can use {{sronly}} to keep the descriptive titles for accessibility without showing them visually.
  • I did this and then realised that it leaves the refs hanging above the table, so I've left it for now. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
    • You can put it at the bottom of the table too. Take a look at Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) for an example of this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• I think the abbreviated links in the Nationality and Country columns should use {{Abbrlink}}. Most people don't know country acronyms off the top of their heads.
  • I've removed the abbreviations and used the full name. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Source review: Passed
  • In Ref 2, 5 and 6, why abbreviate "Rec. Sport. Soccer Statistics Foundation"?
    • The full name is used not the abbreviation. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • For Ref 1, I would recommend changing "bibliography" to a sub-heading of the "References" section and then add an additional subheading titled "Citations". An example of this is at Packers sweep.
    • Done NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • All other references appear appropriate for the information being cited. All references are formatted appropriately.
  • Spot checks on 10 refs did not bring up any issues.

Please ping me when you have had a chance to respond. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• • • Thanks of the comments @Gonzo fan2007:, I've addressed your comments and responded above to some. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Support. I added one response above but it wouldn't prevent my support, so feel free to take it or leave it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• The competition was discontinued in 2004 with the introduction of the FIFA Club World Cup - The FIFA Club World Cup was introduced in 2000, though.
  • I've reworded this to reflect this. Let me know if it needs tweaking as I wasn't 100% confident in my change. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Something like that, but maybe following the introduction in 2000 of the FIFA Club World Cup, which features better. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Changed to your suggestion. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• In the caption, it would be worth stating that the picture dates from the 1970s, if that's the case.
  • Is it from 1970, though? According to the description, I guess c. 1970 or something like that would be better. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Added c. 1970 instead. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• A comma is missing before respectively.
• There's a problem with the caption of the grouped images. In mobile view, the order is slightly different, with Sacchi in the middle, so it makes it confusing. Would there be any way of fixing this?
  • I think I've resolved this now. Think the issue was that image 1 was last in order. Switched it around and that seems to have resolved it for me when I opened the app. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    • It's still not working for me. I still see Sacchi in the middle? Maybe someone else knows how to solve this? Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how to resolve this for mobile, or if you can. Guess one solution is to trim the images down to two instead of three. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
        • Hi, PresN. Do you know how we could solve this? Thanks in advance, Alavense (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
          • Maybe try putting their names in |caption1/2/3, and then in the overall caption you wouldn't have to state e.g. (left). --PresN 11:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
            • Ok, I've done that now. Let me know if that's better @Alavense:. NapHit (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• In the headers, Ref(s) should be Ref(s). And please use {{abbr}} to state that it stands for "References".
  • This hasn't been looked at yet. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I didn't realise you meant to include the full stop as well (I think that's what you're suggesting), so I've made that change and the abbreviation is there too. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• If "Country" refers to the club, wouldn't the column have to be after that for "Club"?
  • I get what you're saying here. This is the common way of referring to the nationality of the club on WP:FOOTY articles, especially as we can't just use the flag per MOS:FLAG. I'm not sure it would be better if the nationality of the club was after the club itself, but that could be just because I'm used to it being this way. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to have the columns arranged in this order: Year, Winning manager, Nationality, Club and Country? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems more logical to me. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I don't know, it's kind of how it's always been done for these WP:FOOTY lists, of which there are multiple ones with the same format that are featured. Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean I'm right so I'm open to a second opinion on this from the FL directors, @ChrisTheDude: if you have any thoughts on this given your experience with football-related lists, or any other interested editors. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Link the teams both in a) and b) notes.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Alavense:, I've addressed them all and left some comments above on specific points. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I replied to some. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Replied to some of the points you made above @Alavense:. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about the order in which the columns are arranged, but never mind. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:21, 2 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [29].

---

List of hipposiderids

Nominator(s): PresN 15:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Back with another mammal list, #42, and we turn the page to the 2nd-to-last order of mammals: Chiroptera, or bats! I took a break before starting this to adjust the scripts I use to generate the initial tables to make it easier on myself to deal with recent taxonomic revisions, and also went out and bought a 10-pound, 800-page reference book so that I can stop pawing through google books results. The result is bat family #1/20: the hipposiderids. This list follows conventions for the previous lists, with two changes: these bats all eat roughly the same things, so it's just listed in the lede instead of every single row; and I've added the arm/wing length, because it's relevant to flying creatures (and I had a consistent source!). In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "A member of this family is called an hipposiderid" - is it really "an" hipposiderid? Not "a".....?
• Maybe link "cicada"? Not sure this is a commonly understood word on a global level.....
• That's all I got - awesome work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Done and done, thanks! --PresN 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

AK

• "mammal order Chiroptera" should be "mammalian order"
• "Chiroptera, and part" Comma unnecessary.
• "microbat suborder grouping" Doesn't make sense, should be either "microbat suborder Microchiroptera" or just "microbat suborder".
• "hipposiderid, or an" Comma unnecessary.
• "They are named for the shape of their nose-leaf." Saying they're called leaf-nosed because of the shape of their nose-leaf seems weird, maybe "for their elongated, leaf-shaped nose"?
• "the Hipposideros genus of roundleaf bats" Reads weirdly to me.
• "Anthops, or the flower-faced bat;" Why the duplink?
• I'm not sure that mentioing the common names after the genera is necessary, the names aren't unique to each genus and don't seem to form monophyletic groups.
• Everything else seems fine.
• Nice work overall; wish Enwebb was still active, I bet she'd be happy to see the bat lists finally getting some love. AryKun (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @AryKun: All done, thanks. She actually pointed me towards the source that I'm mainly drawing on for sizes earlier this summer, so hopefully she's seen them (and if not, I just posted on her talk page!) --PresN 22:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @AryKun, just following up to see if all of your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hey man im josh, yeah, I'm comfortable supporting on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Image review – I checked a sampling of images, including the lead photo, and everything I reviewed had proper licensing, captions and alt text, and maps had appropriate sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:44, 31 August 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [30].

---

List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a list I've been working on alongside my revamp of Mongol Empire-related articles on WP. I am indebted to the authors of List of Chinese emperors for a considerable amount of the detail, and to the authors of the FLs for the emperors of the Han dynasty and of the Song dynasty for the layout. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Attempted to reduced the power of the minister Temuder" - remove the d from reduced
• "Briefly ruled before killed by El Temür" => "Briefly ruled before being killed by El Temür"
• Notes b and c need full stops
• That's all I got - awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • All fixed ChrisTheDude, thanks for your time! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• There are two problems here, both of which I think have the same solution. The portraits don't have alt text, and the image column is the one set as the row headers but has no text to read out. Putting alt text on the images as the name of the ruler (e.g. [[File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg|110px|alt=Genghis Khan]] should sort that out, as the alt text would be read out for both cases. For the rows with no image, please add invisible text for the cell, so e.g. <span style="display:none">Oghul Qaimish</span>.
• I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 19:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • All done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Per MOS:COLHEAD, it isn't recommended to "place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table". Either separate the table into two or convert that fact into a sentence or two just before the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • It is already explained in prose, so I have just removed the column headers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

SnowFire

Nice work.

Prose comments (usual disclaimer that these are suggestions, not demands, feel free to decline any of them):

• The Yuan dynasty was the antepenultimate imperial dynasty of China - The lede needs to be the most tightly written section of an article, and the most accessible to casual readers. I think "antepenultimate" might be too fancy a word here for the first sentence (ngrams says it is a very rare word in modern English). I'd just remove it and say "an imperial dynasty." (Or, if you really want to bring it up, then to split off a sentence on dynasties and move it there rather than have it in the first sentence - maybe "...by Kublai Khan. It was the antepenultimate imperial dynasty of China, which succeeded the Song dynasty and preceded the Ming dynasty." But just removing it is fine too.)
  • Removed.
• "subsequently split into four autonomous states" Nit: I'd suggest the wikilink better fits "split into four autonomous states", not "subsequently split" (which seems like a more mysterious wikilink).
  • Good call.
• I know that "rump state" is a term of art and fine for specialists, but the Northern Yuan ruled a still fairly huge swath territory for over a century, and I wonder if the term might suggest the Northern Yuan were punier & less significant than they really were. (Like, we wouldn't say "The United Kingdom is a rump state left over from the decline of the British Empire", and the modern UK is probably smaller than the Northern Yuan. If much more densely populated, of course.) Is there a better term to use here? It can still wikilink to rump state somewhere, of course. "His descendants continued to rule a state of reduced size in Inner Mongolia until 1634 in a polity known as the Northern Yuan." perhaps?
  • I'm comfortable with the current phrasing. Despite their large size, the Northern Yuan was fairly insignificant and very often not a coherent state at all.
• While on that note, in the realm of easter egg links in Ukhaghatu Khan's notes. I'd definitely assume that "a rump state" linked to the rump state article, not the N. Yuan article. I know concision is important in tables, but I'd say it's worth writing "the Northern Yuan, a rump state in Inner Mongolia."
  • Done somewhat.
• Nit: On the collapse in Background... it's not a big deal, but I could see reading "Forced to flee" as something like "Toghon Temür was captured and told to go into exile" (which is incorrect). But strictly speaking, he chose to flee. Could maybe reorient the sentence to give him some more agency, like "...an economic crisis led to a breakdown of the social order. Toghon Temür fled from the powerful warlord Zhu Yuanzhang, who conquered the capital of Daidu and established the Ming dynasty in 1368." Potentially a similar change in the actual list row's entry if you agree it'd be an improvement.
  • I don't think he really had much agency or choice, and prefer the current wording.
• after it ended she quickly lost influence and died This could theoretically be misread as both her loss of influence and her death as being quick, but it's just the former. Maybe add a comma after "influence"? (If that's too many commas in one sentence for taste, could remove "But" and start a new sentence.)
  • No, her death was quick IIRC—just a few months after her loss of power.
• she was found complicit in their rebellion and executed. This makes it sound like she was executed as a political foe, which sounds like it was true in reality, but she was "officially" executed for witchcraft. I recognize that these are short blurbs and not full biographies but this seems kinda relevant in the same way that Joan of Arc being executed for heresy is relevant (not for supporting the "wrong" king of France). Maybe "due to her opposition of Mongke, she was found guilty of witchcraft as a pretext, and executed."?
  • Somewhat adjusted.
• his legitimacy was always suspect; he attempted reconciliation by purging those who had brought him to power. This is a very dour assessment of Yesun Temur. Paludan calls him "a respected steppe ruler" and Chi-Ching writes this his post-ascension purge was a "masterstroke" at restoring his legitimacy. Neither reports revolts or coups until after he died. In other words, this was no mere "attempt" at reconciliation, and his legitimacy does not seem to have "always" been suspect. Maybe "His legitimacy under question due to the assassination that brought about his ascension. He purged the coup plotters to restore the blot on his honor." or the like? Also, both sources spend time specifically calling out Yesun Temur's commitment to government impartiality with regard to religion, which seems very cool and worth a brief sentence.
  • Adjusted.
• Is it worth throwing in a link to List of emperors of the Ming dynasty somewhere? Maybe the very end of the list? Totally optional, of course (I know you could get to it from the See also link to "List of Chinese monarchs", but that one is a little more relevant as the immediate successors).
  • I'd then probably have to include links to the Jin and Song dynasties. Annoyingly the infobox doesn't have appropriate parameter.

Source review:

• Any particular reason Töregene Khatun doesn't have a posthumous name listed? The WP article says it's "Empress Zhaoci (昭慈皇后)" and Moule 1957 says "Lu Huangho" (which is... really far off, that sounds like it might be a different name rather than Wade-Giles being weird). I skimmed Broadbridge 2018 but I couldn't find her discussing her posthumous name - does anyone know for sure?
  • I don't think anyone does.
• Setsen Khan (i.e. Kublai) is listed as having his reign start in 1271. But Rossabi 1994 writes "Khubilai ascended to the throne in China in 1260", Moule 1957 simply writes "May 5 1260" for reign start, and Paludan 1998 says "declared himself 'Great Khan' in 1260" while holding lots of Chinese territory. Paludan does offer a later date than 1260 in her timeline on p. 148, but that's 1279 (not 1271) when he becomes emperor of "all China" and wins the war. I get that the declaration of emperorship in 1271 is worth calling out somewhere, but it seems Kublai ruled de facto earlier, and also backdated his emperorship to start then as well. (Atwood's entry on the Yuan dynasty explicitly mentions 1279 as the start date to some Chinese historians too, so definitely a date worth calling out in the notes IMO.)
  • Correct, I don't know why I put 1271. Added a note.
• Was Ragibagh Emperor? Moule 1957 lists him, but Paludan 1998 says "he is not included in the official list of Emperors" and Chi-Ching does not bother to give him a section header. I'm not saying to remove him, but List of English monarchs puts Jane Grey in italics and has a big "disputed claimant" warning, which seems the closest equivalent. Maybe deserves a different shading, italics, and a "Yesun Temur loyalists acclaimed this kid was Emperor but they didn't win the ensuing civil war" disclaimer. (Irinjibal seems a less controversial inclusion, though Paludan makes a similar remark about him not being in the official list. But Irinjibal also ruled twice as long and not during an immediate conflict trying to depose him.)
  • It's difficult to say much about a child who died after a month of rule. I don't see enough arguments in modern scholarship about whether he was emperor (contrasting with LJG) to justify saying he was a disputed claimant.
• Verified the Wilkinson 2012 & Broadbridge 2018 cites.
• Spot checked a few citations from Atwood 2004, looks good. (I focused most of my attention on the Yuan post-Kublai as that seems the most relevant time period for Chinese history, as the earlier rulers are presumably already well-covered by Mongol history, but checked a few here anyway.)
• Spot checked the dates from Moule 1957, looks good. (The names are in Wade-Giles so those obviously don't match the Pinyin, but that's fine, it's clearly the same names.)
• Spot-checked most of the citations to "The Cambridge History of China, Volume 6", looks good.
• Spot checked various citations to Paludan 1998, looks good. There are a few differences but they're where she differs from Moule / Cambridge (e.g. she thinks Shidibala only took the throne in 1321? But the other two say 1320. Maybe even just demote her from being cited at all there, that seems more like a mistake than intentionally disputing when he took the throne.) Well, she doesn't use a Romanization with diacritics, but I'll presume the ones in the list are accurate. Also since some leaders have different Romanizations, you obviously have to pick one (I see Cambridge was favored for "Khaishan" vs. "Haishan", etc.), so that's fine. One other nitpick: the citation for Temur Oljeitu seems to be more appropriate to p. 154-156, not 156-158?
  • Adjusted the last.

Overall, great work! SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for an exhaustive set of comments SnowFire, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits.

On Toregene's death: To be clear, I mean a reading of "quick" being the manner of death, e.g. dead in her sleep or shot through the head with an arrow, vs. an agonizing 2-hour long execution or a week-long severe illness. The source didn't seem to report the manner of death at all, ergo whether it was quick or not is unknown. If I wanted to emphasize that the death was merely shortly after in time, then "quickly lost power, and died soon afterward" perhaps? But I think just a comma is still enough space. (Ultimately up to you.)

On a List of Ming emperors link: Consistency is overrated. I say throw it in "See also" if there isn't a better place to fit it, but up to you.

On recent edits: Why did you remove the image File:YuanEmperor Kusala.jpg Eupakistani added? I've looked at the Metropolitan Museum's description of the image, a very reliable art history source, and it seems accurate enough. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/37614 : "Prince Qoshila" as the second marking in the bottom left corner (surely "Kusala"), and "At the bottom are portraits of the patrons, from left to right: Tugh Temür, the great-grandson of Khubilai Khan, who briefly served as emperor of the Yuan dynasty, his older brother, and their wives." It looks good to me.

Anyway, support, remaining issues above are nitpicks. SnowFire (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• comprise both Kublai's successors as rulers of China, and his predecessors up to his grandfather Genghis - I think there's no need for that comma.
• and a regime in China, which was ruled by Genghis's grandson Kublai Khan - I think that relative clause is defining and, if so, the comma would not be needed.
• An alternative view, favoured by some later Chinese historians, place - places?
• They continued the tradition, dating from the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) of the ruling head of state being known as huangdi - A comma is needed after the parenthesis.
• Toghon Temür died of natural causes - That's the only instance in the whole column in which the name of an emperor is mentioned.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No pressure or rush, just following up to make sure you saw this feedback @AirshipJungleman29. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

All of those should be sorted now, Alavense. Thanks for the comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:22, 2 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [31].

---

First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford

Nominator(s): Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured list because it is well-sourced and, IMO, meets the basic requirements of a featured list. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Great work and a topic kinda close to my heart as my son currently attends one of the formerly all-female colleges, but I feel like you need to explain the set-up of these women receiving degrees for the first time in a bit more detail, specifically the fact that the first degrees were awarded in 1920 but the women in the table "graduated" anything up to 41 years earlier. Presumably the degree awards were in essence retrospective? Also, how did the women originally "graduate" without receiving a degree (most people reading the article would understand the concept of "graduating" as "receiving their degree". Did the earlier women essentially just, I dunno, leave.....?)
• Some more nit-picky comments:
• Image caption: "First women colleges at Oxford" => "First women's colleges at Oxford"
• "Before 1920, it is estimated that around 4,000 women studied at Oxford" => "Tt is estimated that around 4,000 women studied at Oxford before 1920"
• " The first woman unofficial accepted at Oxford" => " The first woman unofficially accepted at Oxford"
• "The last survivor of the 1920 conferral ceremonies was Constance Savery who graduated in 1920" - last four words are redundant given how the sentence starts
• Image caption starting "former" needs a full stop
• Suggest linking "jurisprudence" in the table as it's a rather obscure word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, I've gathered and added as much info as I could in a "History" section. I've also made the minor edits you have suggested and added the links too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Omnis Scientia, thank you for writing the article and expanding the coverage of women at Oxford. In response to ChrisTheDude's question, the exams available and taken by women changed during the period. From 1876 the university's Delegacy for Local Examinations (DLE) offered Women’s Examinations, equivalent to Responsions, and pass or honours final examinations. By 1894 women could take university examination papers through the DLE, which awarded a certificate of the results of the exams. From 1896 Somerville or the Association for the Education of Women issued a diploma listing the exams a student had passed at the end of her studies.
• Suggest replacing Graduation date with Final examination in the table, if that is what the date represents
• Suggest another paragraph explaining about the exams available and the certificates and diplomas mentioned above
• LMH, Somerville and the Home Students all opened in 1879. LMH uses a foundation date of 1878 as its founding committee was set up in that year, but I think that is not relevant to this article
• I believe that in "By 1895, Oxford and the University of Cambridge were the only universities in the United Kingdom to deny women degrees" the UK means GB and NI, as Trinity College, Dublin was not awarding women degrees. Suggest replacing United Kingdom with Great Britain
• Suggest that "The five women's colleges were not given equal status to men's colleges until 1959" should say "the men's colleges" as it refers to the group of existing fully accepted colleges, not men's colleges in general.St Catherine's College, Oxford St Peter's College, Oxford and St Catherine's College, Oxford did not get full college status until 1961 and 1962. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  @TSventon, thank you for the additional info! Being honest, I didn't FULLY understand the whole exam diploma/certificate system so I wrote in one line that they were given certificates at the end of examinations, along with a reference. You're welcome to expand on the examination process if you want.

  I've also added most of the rest of your suggestions. I do think graduation is correct term since they did complete their studies. They were just not given a degree. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @TSventon, would like an update on this. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Omnis Scientia apologies for the delay. I have expanded the sentence on exams and certificates as requested, please copy edit as necessary. I have looked up "graduation" e.g. at Collins and it has at least two separate meanings, 1 completion of studies and 2 degree ceremony, so the way it is used in the table is correct, but confusing. That is a detail so

• Support TSventon (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  @TSventon, thank you! Much appreciated! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Comments by Alavense

Excellent work, Omnis Scientia. I saw nothing other than maybe a comma missing in "was Constance Savery who died"? Support. Alavense (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense, I've fixed the comma. Thank you for the kind words! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by UC

An enjoyable article on an important topic. Some points below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• The lead seems terribly short -- I don't see that it includes much from the history section, which would seem to break MOS:LEAD -- unless things work differently for lists?
• A pedantic one -- matriculating is something that the student does -- therefore, people aren't matriculated, they matriculate.
• The history of the Oxford women's colleges is a bit complicated, and I must admit to not understanding it very well. However, I'm looking with some confusion at the sentence In June 1878, the Association for the Education of Women (AEW) was formed, aiming for the eventual creation of a college for women in Oxford. The first women's colleges at Oxford opened the following year: Lady Margaret Hall, Somerville Hall and the Society of Oxford Home-Students (later known as St Anne's College).. St Anne's didn't technically become a college until the 1950s, and the Society of Oxford Home-Students needs a bit of explanation as to what it actually was -- it certainly wasn't formally a college, but was practically quite a different beast as well (this may need an EFN when it comes to the table). Both Somerville and LMH were also technically halls of residence instead of colleges (Somerville formally changed over in 1894), but I'm not sure how important the distinction was. Were they, however, always strictly colleges of the university rather than permanent private halls?
• The five women's colleges were not given equal status to the men's colleges until 1959: what does equal status actually mean, in this context?
• For accessibility, better to move the Times blockquote to the right, to maintain a consistent left margin.
• I'm a little uncomfortable with the sourcing in the history section -- it's almost entirely publications from the university itself, and for that matter, almost all a self-published, non-scholarly web page -- whatever we think of the quality of Oxford's research, we shouldn't extend the same deference to their PR team. This doesn't meet the "independent" site of WP:HQRS -- we shouldn't allow Oxford to mark their own homework.
• This was a huge step towards women being granted full membership: both a cliché and perhaps a bit back-patting?
• the statute which established the Delegacy acknowledged women as Oxford members for the first time as well as the five women's colleges, with the University assuming formal control and supervision over them: this is a run-on sentence, and it becomes quite unclear as to whether it was the colleges or the women who were formally controlled.
• It would be another ten years of campaigning before women were finally admitted as full members: we haven't really talked about this campaigning at all.
• Notable women conferred degrees in 1920: what's the criteria for inclusion here?
• I would make the college and degree subject columns sortable.
• Being pedantic again, is it a graduation year if you didn't receive a degree (gradus)? I do see the Collins point above, but in this particular context it's clear that nobody -- including the women themselves -- would have seen themselves as "graduating" in e.g. 1886 (otherwise, why turn up to "graduate" again?). Suggest "Final year of studies".
• The citation to "Dorothy L Sayers: A Biography" is oddly formatted, and the link is broken. Her ODNB page says that the degree was in modern French (it brackets 'medieval', but to me that sounds like Sayers got her degree in 'modern' (post-Latin) French by offering papers in medieval French, like someone might get a degree in Archaeology and Anthropology by studying human evolution).
• The citation formatting is a bit inconsistent -- check dashes for ranges, dashes or no dashes for ISBNS, dots and spaces after p, and the other little pedantic things. Using citation templates throughout would help.

@UndercoverClassicist: I have posted a link to your questions on @Omnis Scientia:'s talk page and will try to answer your questions about colleges.

what does equal status actually mean, in this context? The University of Oxford currently has three types of “colleges”. Most are colleges of the University of Oxford (full colleges), which have royal charters and are governed by their fellows. There are also permanent private halls, which are governed by religious institutions, and societies, which are neither colleges nor PPHs. The women’s halls were not recognised by the university at all until 1910. A college head said they “are in Oxford, but they are not of Oxford, and are no more known to the University, as such, than Holloway College, many of whose students pass University examinations but will be jealously excluded from degrees.“ In 1910 they became “recognised societies” and in 1920 “societies of women students”.

In 1959 the women’s societies became full colleges, which meant that they were accepted as equal to the existing (men’s) colleges. A prerequisite for the status of a college of the university of Oxford was that governance was in the hands of the principal and fellows rather than external trustees. Also, according to the Oxford Magazine, college heads could be appointed as vice-chancellor. The next colleges to be recognised were St Peter's College, Oxford in 1961 and St Catherine's College, Oxford in 1962.

Were they, however, always strictly colleges of the university rather than permanent private halls? The women's colleges were recognised as societies from 1910 until 1959, rather than halls or full colleges.

LMH, Somerville, St Hugh’s and St Hilda’s opened as halls of residence, without any teaching staff (see chapters of the Victoria County History). As student numbers increased they started to employ tutors and, apart from LMH, take the name of college. For example Somerville changed its name “in the belief that it would not only improve the educational status of Somerville in the eyes of the public, but would be understood as implying the desire of the Governing Body to raise it above the level of a Hall of Residence.“ The four women’s colleges received royal charters in 1926 (see chapters of the Victoria County History).

The home students were supervised by the AEW from 1879 to 1910, but only given their own principal and committee in 1893. From 1910 they were supervised by the Delegacy for Woman Students and from 1920 by the Delegacy for Home-Students. In 1942 The home students took the name St Anne’s Society and in 1952 they received a royal charter and took the name St Anne’s College. TSventon (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this -- it certainly helped me clarify things, and I hope it will find its way as necessary into the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist, I will add on that "notable women" are women who have article on Wikipedia.

Also want to thank @TSventon a lot for their contribution here. They know a lot more about this topic than I do. I started this list in part to listify a category and learned about the subject as I was creating it. Quite a bit of info was added by TSventon and he provided a lot of missing names to add on. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I searched Wikipedia for all the women who graduated in 1920–1921 academic year according to the Oxford University Gazette and found 69 names. The is as complete as I can make it but I may have missed a few cases where the names in Wikipedia and the Gazette are different for some reason. TSventon (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If the ambition is to make this a complete list (even if that ambition may never be fulfilled, because some of the women won't have good sources about them), I think we should cut the word "notable" in the subhead, which implies that it's only ever going to be a curated one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I have expanded the section about women's colleges as discussed.

As to completeness, the list currently includes about 65 names out of about 650 graduations in the first year and I don't think there is any ambition to increase that significantly.

On sourcing, I agree that we should not over rely on university websites. Within those, some pages are written by academics, especially firstwomenatoxford.ox.ac.uk, which names a team of academics and archivists. I think that is a high quality source, but not an independent one. TSventon (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon, great work, thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: the FL criteria require a "lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria". Do you know any examples of FL where an inclusion criterion is Wikipedia notability or having a Wikipedia article? TSventon (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon, I can't think of one. I do think that the criteria of the list is explained in the lead of this particular article. My bias opinion, of course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I cannot see any statement in the lead of the inclusion criteria for this list, which leads me to believe that the list theoretically includes all the women awarded degrees in that first ceremony. I would say that formally setting the criteria at "has a Wikipedia article" would be an odd choice, since we don't consider Wikipedia to have any scholarly authority in itself. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I agree the criteria should be explained, but lists of notable foos seem to be accepted in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The list was originally based on Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford, but is now based on women's graduations between October 2020 and December 2021 listed in the Oxford University Gazette, digitised here, where I have found a Wikipedia article. In Stand-alone lists, WP:LISTPEOPLE says

Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:

• The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

In the WP:CSC (Common selection criteria) section of the same guideline, the first criterion given is Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. Red-linked entries should be accompanied by citations sufficient to show that the entry is sufficiently notable for an article to be written on it (i.e., citations showing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject).

Would something like the first sentence of List of 2019 albums work? It was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 12#Documenting selection criteria. TSventon (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a distinction between "meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article", which is reasonably defensible (because it essentially means "has been noticed in good scholarship"), and "has a Wikipedia article", which is much harder. WP:LISTPEOPLE applies really to potentially very large lists -- as we have an exact and fairly small number for the total population eligible to be listed here, I think we should be aiming to get all of them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I personally prefer the current criteria over including a complete list. For ordinary degrees the current list has 52 names out of a total 733 degrees awarded, ignoring the Oxford MAs. It would be possible to import a spreadsheet with all the names, but that feels WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. Also the current list has name, college, subject and exam year, while the lists in the Gazette only have name, college, degree (mostly B.A.) and graduation date).

The list as submitted included the criterion "notable", so red links could be included. Also articles which don't meet the criteria for the list can be excluded. TSventon (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes; my view would be that if someone who would meet (say) GNG is excluded from the list purely because they do not currently have a Wikipedia page, that list cannot claim to be sufficiently complete or comprehensive under the FL criteria. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon, @UndercoverClassicist, if you think a complete list is good then I'm for it. We can divide the names so its easier to navigate the page. By that I mean "A-G" "H-P", "R-Z" or something similar. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Source review

I'll do a source review, and add any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there are quite a few tweaks needed, but nothing fundamental - mainly consistency across citations. Please feel free to challenge or to ask for clarifications. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• I think that where there is no author stated, there should be a blank rather than "_____,", but let me check.
• Not all online sources have access dates (e.g. Constance Savery". Bethlehem Books; "1894-1896". University of Oxford; "1896 Towards Degrees for Women". Somerville College.) Y
• There should be consistency in whether sources are linked. (e.g. St. Anne's College, Oxford is linked in ref 8, but Somerville College isn't in ref 17) Y
• There shoud be consistency in whether publication loctions for books are given. Y
• Shuld be consistency in how page numbers are given (like "p.12", not like "p10") Y
• Surprisingly, 'They couldn't go on the river with a man on their own' - the changing lives of Oxford's female students" requires registration, so it should have a url-access=Registration parameter Y
• Who's Who (refs 35, 53, 112) is considered "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP Y
• Repetition in " 'University Intelligence', The Times, 26 June 1912, p.12; 'University Intelligence', The Times, 27 June 1912, p.6." - is it one article continued across pages 6 and 12? (I have access to the Times Digital Archive, so can check this if you're not sure) Y
• Doesn't look like "(Following the Oxford custom a BA not a BSc.) University Intelligence, The Times, 28 June 1920, p10" is formatted quite correctly. Y
• Brittain, Vera (1960). The Women at Oxford. appears three times, with inconsistent details. Y

Sure thing, will fix these issues. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've gotten most of them, @BennyOnTheLoose. If I missed something, make sure to ping me.

I should add that most of inconsistancy and repetativeness is because I took the sources from the articles themselves and their formatting was varied. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Omnis Scientia: Thanks for the responses so far. I've made a few formatting tweaks suggested by scripts; please review these and revert any which you disagree with. "Rx" below refers to "reference number x". I'll take another look after you've replied to the points below, and haven't forgotten that I said I would check about ""_____," Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

• Not a requirement for FL, but you could use https://anticompositetools.toolforge.org/hyphenator/ to standardise the formatting of the ISBNs. Y
• Not a requirement for FL to change it, as far as I'm aware, but it's unusual to see FLC citations not using a citation template (e.g. the first five refs) Y
• Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations are inconsistent. (e.g. Not all have the red padlock, some have authors, R27 has a date, some don't have the doi, not all have accessed date, R98 doesn't have the wikilink, R104 has the abbreviation) Y
• R12 - missing ISBN
• R14 - missing publisher

• Still missing publisher. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• R15 - missing ISBN
• R17 - Missing access date

• Still missing access date. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• R22 - Missing access date

• Still missing access date. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• R33 - incomplete details (missing page title)

• Now R35, still missing page title. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• R44 - Missing access date
• R46 isn't this published by "Somerville College" rather than by "University of Oxford WWI Centenary" ? Y
• What makes melaniespanswick.com a reliable source? (I see lots of books, but wasn't fully convinced) Y
• Authors don't all use first/last parameters:
  • last=Parkes, Susan M. Y
  • author=Mavis Curtis Y
  • first1=Catherine M. C. Haines with Helen M. Y
  • author1=Dimand, Robert William|author2=Dimand, Mary Ann|author3=Forget, Evelyn L. Y
  • author=Frances Lannon Y
  • Fernanda Helen Perrone (not in a citation template; surname should appear first) Y
  • Constance Savery (R51; not in a citation template; surname should appear first) Y
  • Giles Brindley (not in a citation template; surname should appear first) Y
  • Philip E. Bennett (not in a citation template; surname should appear first) Y
• Vera Brittain could have an author-link Y
• Rosemary Mitchell could have an author-link Y
• Textile History could be wikilinked Y
• National Library of Wales could be wikilinked Y
• Pitt Rivers Museum could be wikilinked Y
• Book titles are inconsistently capitalised. I think these should be amended: A danger to the men? : a history of women in Trinity College Dublin 1904–2004, A biographical dictionary of women economists, Brief biographies of British mycologists, Traditions of social policy : essays in honour of Violet Butler; International women in science : a biographical dictionary to 1950. Also "Oxford dictionary of national biography" Y
• R68 - publication is via isuu, not by it Y
• As far as I know, we usually omit "Ltd/Limited" from the publisher name in citations Y
• A couple of web citations have the url displayed in the citation, e.g. trowelblazers.com, www.newulsterbiography.co.uk. I think just the site name should be shown. Y
• Still some inconsitency in whether sources are wikilinked. Y

General comments

• Michaelmas term could be wikilinked, rather than Michaelmas Y

Ticking the ones as I finish them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose, okay I think I've gotten most of them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose, anything else? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• R6, Handbook to the University of Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1965. has an ISBN despite pre-dating the ISBN system. Is it right? Y (I'm assuming its the isbn of a new addition. Have removed it.)
• R56, Savery's work diaries. Is this a published book, or something held in the University of Oregon archives? Y (removed since, yes, its held by the University of Oregon and is not accessible.)
• R73, Glenday & Price. Could use its OCLC (779055717) if there is no ISBN. Y
• R76, Rayner-Canham. Missing ISBN. Y
• What makes fantastic-writers-and-the-great-war.com a suitable source? Y (fair point; removed)
• R83, Richardson. Missing ISBN. Y
• R84, "DR ENID STARKIE" should not be in all-caps Y
• Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations are nearly all now consistent, except that only one (R30) lists the author. Shouldn't all the authors be listed, and shouldn't there be access dates as it's the online version? Y (access-dates require URL; the "cite ODNB" template required the doi and the title; there are more options but the rest isn't required)
• There is still inconsistency in whether publishers are linked. Y

Okay so I've decided to NOT link the publishers since some don't have articles. The rest, I will tell you as soon as I'm done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose, okay that's done. Hopefully correctly. Ping me if there is more to be done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nearly there. I've made, and will probably make a couple more, minor tweaks. Please review and let me know if any are objectionable. In two cases it's not entirely clear to me whether the WorldCat site, or the book it refers to, is being cited. (If a cite web, then it doesn't need the OCLC, if a cite book then it doesn't need the WorldCat url.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a point that affects FL status, but are the two Further Reading books deliberately ordered by date rather than surname?

I swapped out one WorldCat ref for a book. I don't think the current sources for Ivy Wiliams (R89, R90) verify the info; although the wording in On This Day She could maybe be interpreted as supporting it. I think that's the last point! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for the help! And yes the books were deliberately ordered by date, to answer your question.

I will look into Ivy Williams further too. Best regards to as well. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Another general comment:

• I think it should be "honorary" rather than "honourary" degrees. Optionally, a link to Honorary degree could be added in the caption. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the spelling, but the degrees by decree were not honorary degrees as, unlike honorary degrees, they conferred the normal rights of a degree, see the 1866 Oxford University Calendar. Honorary degree#Customary degrees (ad eundem or jure officii degrees) has some background information, not all sourced. TSventon (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• @BennyOnTheLoose and Omnis Scientia: I have replaced the existing lists with complete lists of 1920 graduates sourced to the Oxford University Gazette, which meant that I removed references R23 to R110 inclusive. I think that resolves your query about Ivy Williams, but are you still happy with the sourcing generally? TSventon (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TSventon, overall happy but is there a way to add the papers with the list of women as references into the tables? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Omnis Scientia, do you want me to replace 134 with <ref name="Gazette 1920–1921" />{{rp|p=134}}, etc.? That should be possible. TSventon (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm keeping an eye on this; I have no issue with the change of sources. Please ping me once the article's ready for a final going-over. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon, yes that would be better. Also replace the Page header with Ref.. Though wait a minute on that. I'm just making the tables accessible per the rules. Will ping you when I'm done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon, okay that's the accessibility of the table completed. You can add the references in place of the pages as you see fit. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Complete list

@Omnis Scientia, UndercoverClassicist, BennyOnTheLoose, Alavense, and ChrisTheDude: I have compiled a complete list of graduates from the Oxford University Gazette as suggested by UC and saved it here on the article talk page. I have only done up to December 1920 to give you all a chance to comment on whether it is better than a list of wikipedia articles and to suggest improvements to the format.

Notes: I have removed transcription errors as far as I could. I have noted where the woman was Mrs. as it makes it easier to look for the names elsewhere. I have put each degree on a separate line and ignored Oxford MAs. Only two women, Mary Lindsay Gordon and Ivy Williams, received two degrees. The names of colleges could probably be shortened by omitting college. I have given Wikipedia articles their own column so the table can be sorted for "has Wikipedia article". The last column is a page number but could be a full reference if necessary. TSventon (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Omnis Scientia and UndercoverClassicist: I have replaced the tables with complete versions sourced to the Oxford University Gazette, but they will doubtless need further tweaking. I have just added 1920, but 1921 could be added at a future date. I think it is helpful to allow sorting on most columns. TSventon (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Great work, @TSventon! Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility issues

Noting that the table does not have column or row scopes. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, will get to it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, done. The table was changed just a while back so that's why none of the column or scope rows were there. Table's still being tweaked but do check if everything is good now. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, I have done my corrections.

• 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [32].

---

2016 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite excited to present my third Olympic medal table nomination, which is based largely on other recent nominations, such as 2020 Summer Olympics medal table, 1964 Summer Olympics medal table, and 2018 Winter Olympics medal table. I believe it meets all of our criteria and, as always, I will do my best to respond quickly and address any and all feedback or concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Phelps image caption needs a full stop
• "due to medals reallocation" => "due to medal reallocation"
• CAS should be written in full
• "The IOC has not yet redistributed the medals" - should be medal singular as this cell only relates to one DQ
• You mention Nijat Rahimov's DQ and the lack of reallocation of the medal to date in the prose, but not the other similar case......?
• "an 87th country was later awarded a medal at the 2008 Olympics, tying the record" - should probably also mention in this section that the figure for 2016 subsequently went down to 86 therefore the 2008 games now hold the record outright
• That's all I got - great work as ever, Josh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Phelps image caption needs a full stop – Done.
• Example text – Done.
• CAS should be written in full –
• "The IOC has not yet redistributed the medals" - should be medal singular as this cell only relates to one DQ – Done. I was thinking "medals" because, if redistributed, the gold would go to second, the silver would go to... well... the thid place person is under investigation, but the idea is it would go to them, and so on. Hence, I was thinking of multiple reallocations. Never the less, for the time being, singular actually makes sense.
• You mention Nijat Rahimov's DQ and the lack of reallocation of the medal to date in the prose, but not the other similar case......? – I've converted it to a note now, but
• "an 87th country was later awarded a medal at the 2008 Olympics, tying the record" - should probably also mention in this section that the figure for 2016 subsequently went down to 86 therefore the 2008 games now hold the record outright – I've added to the note, I hope it makes things more clear.

Thanks so much for the feedback @ChrisTheDude!! I very much appreciate it and I hope I've addressed all of your points. Please do let me know if I can do better. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @ChrisTheDude, sorry, just to follow up on this... Which version is correct? You asked me to remove a full stop from an image at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2018 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1, but you asked me to add it in this case. Both captions, the other being at 2018 Winter Olympics medal table, are formatted the same way except for the full stop. Just seeking clarity so that I can be consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Image captions that are a complete sentence need a full stop e.g. "Dave Smith won the most medals at the 2064 Olympics." I misread the image caption on the 2018 article and thought it wasn't a complete sentence so didn't need one, turns out I was wrong on that. But, in short: complete sentence needs one, sentence fragment doesn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do a source review, and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Only the SB Nation source is concerning. Nothing in my general comments that is a blocker. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Is the use of SB Nation appropriate, given the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#SB_Nation?
• Everything else looks like a suitable source for the info supported.
• I didn't see any issues with citation formatting.
• Spot checks on "On 18 August 2016, Kyrgyz weightlifter Izzat Artykov was stripped of his bronze medal in the men's 69 kg event after testing positive for strychnine. Luis Javier Mosquera of Colombia, who had been the fourth-place finisher before Artykov's disqualification, was moved into third place" - no issues
• Spot checks on "On 8 December 2016, the CAS disqualified weightlifter Gabriel Sîncrăian of Romania after he tested positive for exogenous testosterone and boxer Misha Aloian of Russia after he tested positive for tuaminoheptane. In the men's 85 kg weightlifting event Denis Ulanov of Kazakhstan was moved into third place. In the men's flyweight (52 kg) boxing event Yoel Finol of Venezuela was moved into second place; the released bronze medal has not been awarded to anyone." - no issues.
• Spot check on "Serghei Tarnovschi of Moldova was stripped of his bronze medal in the men's C-1 1000 metres canoeing event after testing positive for GHRP-2, a growth hormone-releasing peptide." - no issues

General comments

• "The golds are purer than any presented at all preceding Olympics." - "The golds were... " for consistency? Although I suppose "are" is true.
• I like "the mint that minted" but you may want to reword to avoid repetition.

Hey @BennyOnTheLoose, I'm so sorry I missed your review!!! I never would have let this go long without response had I realized sooner. Anyways...

SB Nation discussions are often tainted by the fact people widely evaluate the parent site, SB Nation, along with its hundred of sub sites (typically one for every professional team). Their main site is actually typically pretty okay and doesn't *usually* have anything significantly wrong with it. That's, in my opinion, the reason why we haven't moved to actually placing them in the unreliable source category. For that specific usage of the reference, the only thing that it's verifying is the number of people that were a part of the team. I've had a real tough time verifying how many people were on the team, and it felt relevant to call out the fact that everyone that's "independent" in that context was actually from Kuwait. Unfortinately... 2016_Summer_Olympics#Number_of_athletes_by_National_Olympic_Committee was of no help since it's unreferenced.

As for the other two suggestions, I've made relevant changes. Thanks so much for your review! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Pass for source review in light of the reply above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support as IMO the FL criteria have been met. Thanks, Hey man im josh. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

• A total of 11,238 -> deleting "A total of" would be more concise
• Overall, 87 teams -> same thing with "overall"
• Host country Brazil won seven gold medals, their most at any single Summer Olympics I often try to avoid sentences that may go out of date. I will also note that in 2020 they won 7 gold again. Maybe clarify or rewrite to state that the total of 7 was the most up to that point.
• winning 46 gold and 121 total medals respectively. -> The United States led the medal table both in number of gold medals won and in overall medals, winning 46 and 121 respectively. "Respectively" means that you are listing off totals from the previous phrasing, so no need to repeat.

Just a few comments for now. Ill come back later for more. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• The design for the Olympic medals for the 2016 Summer Olympics featured the largest medals in terms of diameter of any medal presented at the Olympics. --> The 2016 Summer Olympic medals were the largest in history. Ok, I'm not sure what exactly to change this too. I just wanted to show that the sentence is overly complicated. "Olympics" is said 3 times, "medals" is said 3 times, and I can't think of any other way that a circle would be measured other than diameter. Recommend really tightening up.
• Much of the copper used in minting the bronze medals came from recycling waste from the mint itself. "Much of" doesn't equate to 40%, per the source. I would rephrase to "a little less than half" or something more accurate. I also think this strays a little in CLOP territory:
  • Source: And 40 per cent of the copper used in the bronze medals came from waste at the Mint itself.
  • Article: Much of the copper used in minting the bronze medals came from recycling waste from the mint itself.
  • Recommendation: Just under half of the copper used in the bronze medals was recycled from normal operations at the Brazilian Mint. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• You state that the "obverse" side is Nike, while the source says the "reverse" side. I think you mean reverse.

That's all I got hey man im josh. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Gonzo fan2007, I'm sorry I missed your comments until now! I'm just about done for the day so I'll make sure this is all addressed tomorrow. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Gonzo fan2007, is "respectively" really meant to be left out? I find it more confusing to say "winning 46 and 121" and stopping there. I believe I've addressed everything else that you've brought up though and I very much appreciate your feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean that repeating "medals" isn't needed. So you can just say winning 46 and 121 respectively.. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Gotcha, done! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 13:55, 3 September 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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [33].

---

1968 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Another Olympic list just in time for the end of the 2024 Summer Olympics. Will probably reply a bit late for personal reasons but I promise that comments will be responded accordingly. Arconning (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox image caption needs a full stop
• "While Cameroon, Mongolia, and Uganda won their nations' first Olympic medals." - this isn't a complete sentence
• "winning six medals with four gold and two silver medals." => "winning six medals with four gold and two silver." will suffice
• "won the most medals at the games, winning seven medals with two golds, four silvers, and one bronze medal." - as above, "won the most medals at the games, winning seven medals with two golds, four silvers, and one bronze." will suffice and avoid repetition
• "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event after a competitor lost their semifinal, as opposed to fighting in a third place tie breaker." - this doesn't seem quite right, I suggest "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event to the losing semi-finalists, as opposed to them fighting in a third place tie breaker"
• That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude I have done all of this. Let me know if you have any more. :) Arconning (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• "Mexico City, Mexico" is redundant, and can be shortened to just "Mexico City".
• "These games were the first games to be held in Latin America." Change to "These were the first games to be held in Latin America."
• "and 39 of them". Is this referring to 39 nations or 39 athletes?
• "Teams from Kenya,[7] Tunisia,[8] and Venezuela won their nations' first Olympic gold medals.[9] While Cameroon,[10] Mongolia,[11][12] and Uganda won their nations' first Olympic medals." I suggest merging into once sentence: "Teams from Kenya,[7] Tunisia,[8] and Venezuela won their nations' first Olympic gold medals,[9] while Cameroon,[10] Mongolia,[11][12] and Uganda won their nations' first Olympic medals."
• "...at any edition of the Olympic Games." Can be simplified to "...in the Olympic Games."
• "He and the rest of his team were subsequently disqualified..." Simplify to "He and the rest of his team were disqualified..."

Steelkamp (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Support. Steelkamp (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• The issue with the captions hasn't been solved yet. The one in the infobox needs a full stop, while those about Francisco Rodríguez and Tömöriin Artag don't.
• In the references, what does "MNOC" stand for? I think it should be "Organizing Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad, 1969a, p." and "Organizing Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad, 1969b, p.".

That's all I saw, Arconning. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense Done, I think. :) Arconning (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the missing full stop at the end of the infobox image's caption myself. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• I added col scopes myself to the final table
• I fixed a few hyphens for consistency
• Ref 15 should have been United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee instead of "Team USA", but that was the only thing left, so I just did it.

Support, source review passed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 3 September 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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