Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2022

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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [1].

---

List of lagomorphs

Nominator(s): PresN 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Another animal list! This one is a capstone list, summarizing the genera of the two families in the mammal order Lagomorpha and sitting on top of list of leporids (FL) and list of ochotonids (FLC). In this, it follows the prior FLs for list of carnivorans (which was the capstone to the 9 sublists of Carnivora) and list of artiodactyls (which was the capstone to the 4 sublists of Artiodactyla) (and unlike list of perissodactyls, which was too small for sublists). Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits", has 73 species all over the world, though the two families look a little lopsided here since all of the ochotonids (pikas) are in a single genus and the rabbits are more spread out with 11. This should be the last capstone list for a while- after this it'll be mostly single-list orders, since most of the remaining larger orders are really gigantic. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - try as I might I couldn't find anything to quibble about :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support I also have no issues, very nice. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass: nothing problematic this time! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

AK

Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from AryKun (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

* "recently gone extinct" → Perhaps link extinct? "molecular phylogenetic analysis" → "molecular phylogenetic analysis" "into named clades" → Link clade and perhaps add a gloss like (group of all the descendants of a common ancestor) For all the monotypic genera, just write "rabbit" in the common name instead of "rabbits" (eg Amami rabbit instead of Amami rabbits) What reference is supporting the cladogram? It isn't the best illustration, but consider adding CaprolagusHispidusJASB.jpg for Caprolagus. That's all. AryKun (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• @AryKun: All done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. AryKun (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

Goood, why did you have to make me blush with the lead image ;-;

But anyways, comments: GeraldWL 17:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Members of this order are called lagomorphs. Lagomorpha currently comprises 107 extant species"-- kind of a weird repetition when read, "lagomorphs. Lagomorphia". "It" can be a good replacement for the latter, considering the previous sentence is "Members of this order are called lagomorphs."

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "the larger rabbit and hare group and smaller pika group"-- multiple use of "and"

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "11 cm (4 in) long"-- shouldn't this have hyphens? Like "11 cm (4 in)-long"? Most likely not, just wondering.

• No, it shouldn't have one; there's some examples at WP:HYPHEN that show it, though it focuses on not doing e.g. "11-cm long" --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "The domestic rabbit subspecies of the European rabbit has been domesticated"-- I suggest a link to the last word, as having two words of "domestic" that are unrelated to each other is just weird.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Leporidae, containing the hares and rabbits"-- I suggest changing "containing" to "comprising" for consistency, and "containing" just sounds kinda off in context.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Should "families" be linked?

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "The 73 extant species of Leporidae"-- extant duplicate link

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Link cottontail rabbits

• Sylvagus (linked just prior) redirects there, since it's the common name for the genus (I prefer to link to the formal genus names when possible for consistency, since most genera don't have articles at their common name). --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think you should digit-ize "thirty-three", "twenty-seven", and "thirty-four", considering you wrote 12 in digits; plus many people including me have trouble reading numbers above 20 in words.

• Done, was trying to be consistent but I agree it's a pain. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the bullet lists, shouldn't each of the animals be linked?

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Additionally, within the conventions and classification sections, you might wanna link "genera", "extinct", "extant", "order", "Lagomorpha", and "families". The body is a whole different part of the article than the lead, so typically relinking is needed.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "The following classification is based on the taxonomy described by Mammal Species of the World"-- perhaps a lil bit description of the work? Like "the book" or "the reference work" etc? Don't want readers to keep on tapping links.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Members of the Leporidae family"-- assuming my previous point on the linking is implemented, this link here must be removed as duplicate.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the table, the Oryctolagus image is also the same as the lead image. Isn't it a kind of repetition? I suggest changing another image for the table (not for the lead please I love that lead image so much)

• Swapped the table image, hope you like the new one too. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Also for the Oryctolagus row: the map images have two colors but you only highlight one as relevant; is there a way the orange can be removed? Also I don't think it's pink, more like purple.

• Oh, looks like someone made a new version of the image a couple weeks ago that changed the color. Mentioned what orange is for instead of removing it, I think it's notable that it's not native to most of its range --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like this is a clearer picture for the Romerolagus, what do you think?

• Agreed, changed. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Annamite Range in Southeast Asia and Sumatra"-- but Sumatra is part of SEA, though (i should know i live here). That sentence also implied that the Annamite also comprises Sumatra but the article says "Laos, Vietnam, and a small area in northeast Cambodia".

• Ah, yeah, that was worded badly. One species is in Sumatra, and the other in the Annamite mountains (in Laos and Cambodia, aka in SEA); reworded to "Sumatra and the Annamite Range in Laos and Vietnam" --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks so much for the detailed review! Addressed all of your points, sorry for taking so long. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks all good now, and that new Oryctolagus-- ajfvksjdbcdcs how can I not like it! But anyways, it seems like this article is all good now, so Imma support. Good stuff! :) GeraldWL 02:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: reminder that since I wrote this list, one of you two has to evaluate it for promotion. --PresN 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• PresN, not a full source review, but just noticed that there's several uses of pp. for single pages in the refs that should be corrected. AryKun (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• @AryKun: Thanks, not sure how I missed all those. --PresN 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments on my review are welcome. This review will focus on the lede, prose, and understandability.

• "come in two main groupings of body plans," Recommend wikilinking body plans; as a non-biologist expert, I do not know what this means so the wikilink might help. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• In "Classification" is ref 1 verifying all the information in this section? If so, I recommend that ref 1 also be placed after "Modern molecular studies indicate that the 12 genera can be grouped into 2 families." to clarify that it is verifying the introduction sentences.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Both done, thanks! --PresN 02:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Support. My comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references used appear to be both reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were identified by the link-checker tool. This source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:56, 27 April 2022 (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 Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:00, 28 April 2022 (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) 00:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [2].

---

Snooker world rankings 1976/1977

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Only a little list, and not too much to say about it. Thanks in advance for any comments to help improve the list. There were informal ranking lists a few years earlier (from late 1973), including both professionals and amateurs, produced by a panel including Joe Davis and Ted Lowe for a bookmaker; I'll include a mention of those if reviewers think it's worthwhile. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Vilenski

• To be honest, I thought these articles are more suitable to not have a bold title. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not actioned - I know other Snooker world rankings featured lists don't have this but (barring it being against MOS) I'd prefer to keep it if it's not a required change. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• seeded first and the previous year's runner-up was seeded - no need for the second "was seeded". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• the 1976-77 snooker season - hyphen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• World Champion gained five points, the runner-up received four, losing semi-finalists got three, losing quarter-finalists got two, and losers in the last-16 - could probably be a bit more simple. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Has been reworded but let me know if more work is needed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• points, points - repetition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• The eight-highest ranked players were placed direcly into the last-16 round of the 1977 World Snooker Championship - need to explain the alternative. If you weren't highly ranked, you'd have to play additional matches. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Added. Indidentally, when the list was published, the idea was that the top 8 would be in normal seed positions in the draw, those ranked 9 to 14 would be drawn at random into last 16, and everyone else would play in the qualifiers. With many lower-ranked players unhappy about this, there was a WPBSA vote two weeks before the draw that came out 11-10 in favour of changing it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Table needs some rowscopes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Amended - not sure if I've done it right though. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Probably need to explain what "-' means in the table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• There's no need for Main article: 1976–77 snooker season at the top given that it's linked in the first sentence
• I've never seen an article where a "preceded by/succeeded by" template was placed centrally at the top, it looks odd to me. I would put it at the bottom as is by far the norm.
• What makes "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive", which seems to be some random dude's personal website, a reliable source? If it is, there's no need to show the URL in the reference, just the site name would suffice
  • Pop-in note - Chris Turner, who wrote the website is the guy who used to do the statistics for both the BBC and Eurosport. I've used it in several FAs, it far surpasses WP:SPS, deemed a "snooker historian". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by MWright96

• Lead: Clarify that the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association is professional snooker's governing body

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lead: "losing semi-finalists got three, losing quarter-finalists got two," - try and use different words to replace the ones that are highlighted in bold

• Amended the sentence. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lead: "The same points system, using results from 1973, 1974 and 1975 had been used" - repetition of "used(ing)"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Rankings prose: with the total number of point" - typo; points

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Rankings prose: "A "-" symbol" - the hyphen should ideally be an en dash per MOS:DASH as it is in the table

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Higgins Infobox: Consider adding alt text to the Higgins image

• There is some, unless I've misunderstood. Perhaps it could be improved? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Table: Think the title atop the table could do with expanding

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Reference 4: The issue number for The Times reference is 59917

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Reference 6: Mention that Lowestoft is in Suffolk in England for clarity

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all I have for this list MWright96 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, MWright96. Hopefully I've addressed everything you raised, but let me know if there are any points where more is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- Have nothing further to add MWright96 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• I agree with Lee, the bold title does not look good here, incorporating it into natural prose would be better.

• Reworded, but I'm happy to rework it further. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• "results from 1973, 1974 and 1975 had" → "results from 1973, 1974 and 1975, had"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• The alt text for the Higgins image doesn't need the comma.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• That's it, not much to say here. AryKun (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks, AryKun. Let me know if there's more to do. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, nothing else I could find. AryKun (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [3].

---

Michael Jackson albums discography

Nominator(s): TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating Michael Jackson albums discography for the featured list because it is sourced, well-organized, and easy to navigate through. I have spent quite some time expanding and cleaning up the article, which I now believe meets the featured list criteria. This is my second featured list nomination, and I look forward to the comments. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: Most album details appear to be unsourced (the chart histories may contain this info, but that is not clear at the moment), and the chart positions for the video albums are completely unsourced. Also, many sources have access dates from 2009 or 2010, so how can they cover albums released throughout the 2010s? Make sure access dates and archived pages reflect recent updates. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123 I have reviewed and sampled many articles from Category:FL-Class Discography articles before nominating this article, and none of them were sourced as you say. They either use the sources part of chart history or the certifications. Here I've already added a source for the albums, even if it was not certified even though it has already charted. There were only seven releases since 2010 and that's why most of the sources have access dates prior to 2010.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I know that older nominations don't have the same level of sourcing, but the three most recent discography promotions – Regine Velasquez discography, MewithoutYou discography, and Amy Grant discography – all provide sources for album details. Also, access dates and archived pages still need to be updated even if most of the cited information predates those; we need to source all of the information, not most of it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up: I missed the part where you'd updated the sources – those generally look good now, though I haven't taken an in-depth look. Thanks for doing that! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

;Initial comments No reason for a capital on Extended Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) No reason for a capital on Remix Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "According to Recording Industry Association of America" => "According to the Recording Industry Association of America" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "The album peaked at 14 on the Billboard 200 album chart" - the chart wasn't called that in 1972 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "It peaked at five on the Billboard 200 album chart" - same again Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) No reason for capital on Silver Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Epic Records, then known as CBS Records" - that's not true Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "spawned two number-one singles on the billboard hot 100" - needs a capital B Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album to peak" => "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album peak" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "At the 1980 Grammy Awards, it was nominated for two Grammy Awards" - any way to avoid repeating those two words in the same sentence? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC) The source does not support the above claim  Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Jackson winning Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male for "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough"" - not relevant, this article is about his albums, not his singles Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) That's what I got on the first two paragraphs of the lead, will look at more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC) More comments "the Billboard Top LPs & Tapes chart, which spent a record 37 weeks at number one" - the chart did not spend 37 weeks at number one Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Seven singles were released. They all reached the top 10 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart." - these two very short sentences could be combined into one Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "eight Grammy Awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards" - again, try to avoid repetitive language Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "while "Beat It" won Record of the Year" - again, not really relevant in this article Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "eight American Music Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards" - as above Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "The single "You Are Not Alone" was the first song in history to debut at number one on the Billboard Hot 100" - again, not really relevant in this article Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "and is the best selling multiple-disc release, making it one of the best-selling albums of all time" - this badly formatted sentence fragment repeats the sentence before so should be removed Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Title of Blood on the Dance Floor should be in italics Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Not sure "skyrocketed" is really an encyclopedic choice of word Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Essential Michael Jackson should be in italics Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) And so should the two albums in the last sentence of the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) More comments The table heading "Compilation" should be "Compilations", as there is more than one Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "albums at least 18 months old, have fallen below" => "albums at least 18 months old which have fallen below" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "Here, a list of his albums reached a major position in this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:" - this is very mangled English. I would suggest "The following albums appeared on this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) I would also join that list to the one in the next sentence. It makes no sense at all to separate out those which reached a "major" position and those which reached a "minor" position, especially when some of the minor positions are higher than one of the major positions!! Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "List of officially released compilations and other albums not charted in the table" is a terrible title and I can't even tell what it's trying to say. Is it just "albums which don't appear in any of the tables above"? If so, why not? Albums which did not chart should still be listed in the same table as equivalent albums which did, so for example all the Remix Suites should be in the same table as all the other remix albums...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Comments on refs Ref 2 lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 9 is some random guy's self-published/print-on-demand book. There must be dozens of better refs for that statement. Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 10 does not list the author of the book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 13 - what's "George"? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 15 shows the name of the RIAA in full, whereas an earlier ref shows the initials Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) The title of ref 28 is not "archived copy", it also lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 42 lists nothing but the title Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 43 lists no publisher for the book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 44 is also self-published, so not an acceptable source Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) The chart history portion of ref 55 does not exist Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 65 lists nothing but the title Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 72 has the same issue as ref 9 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 82 uses different date format to the rest (as do some others) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 83 has two different date formats within the same ref! Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 101 - Nielsen Business Media Inc. is not the author's name Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 102 - author's names are the wrong way round Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 109 - why is Parool.nl wikilinked, when it doesn't have an article? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Refs 120, 121, 129, 144 are just bare URLs Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 122 has "via allmusic.com", different to all the other AllMusic refs Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 125 is missing almost all fields Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 138 lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 143 is another self-published book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Refs 146 and 148 (and some others) show the author's name with forename first, unlike the rest Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Quite a lot of formatting work to do on the refs, I fear...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) ChrisTheDude take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Quick comment - ref 11: Condé Nast is a company, not a person, so shouldn't be listed as the author -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2021 (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.

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes (which you have) 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. ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;"| Title becomes ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;" scope=col| Title. Note that where you have double headers (e.g. Peak chart positions and also the individual countries) both column headers need the scope.

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 21:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

PresN take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic: Ah, not quite- see my edit to the page. Both the "Peak chart positions" and all of the "US", etc. column headers need it too. I've done it for the first table as an example. --PresN 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

PresN Please see my latest edits and let me know if I missed anything. TheWikiholic (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support as I see no other lingering issues at all. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

Great to see this, as I'm a relatively new MJ fan ever since my brother got interested in his songs. This looks like massive amount of work, which I applaud, but of course at a cost of some flaws which I found. If they're all resolved I'll happily support this nom. GeraldWL 17:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

* Why cant those links in the See also hatnote be moved to the See also section instead? Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC) I suggest using the original crop of the infobox image, since the current one's blurry Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "has sold 89 million certified albums in the US"-- change "US" to "United States" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "The album peaked at 14" --> "It peaked at 14" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "HHe followed the debut album with Ben in the same year. It peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry." Kinda repetitive, suggest "In the same year, he released another album, Ben, which peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me and Forever Michael. These two albums were released in 1973 and 1975 respectively." --> "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me (1973) and Forever Michael (1975)." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records. Jackson's fifth studio album, and the first with Epic Records, Off the Wall, was released in 1979." --> "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records, and released his fifth studio album, Off the Wall, four years later." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Billboard hot 100" --> "Billboard Hot 100" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "it was nominated for two Awards"-- decapitalize the A Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "It became Jackson's first"-- change "Jackson's" to "his" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "the first to become the United States’" --> "the first to become the U.S.'" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Remove the links on the texts "Billboard 200", "9x platinum", and "Billboard Top LPs & Tapes" as they're duplicate Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "It won a record-breaking eight Grammys at the 1984 Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year. Jackson also won a record-breaking eight Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards." This can be shortened to "It won a record-breaking eight awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards (where it won Album of the Year) and the 1984 American Music Awards." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "record-breaking five number ones." What does "five number ones" mean? five number one Singles.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Bad was certified 11× platinum by the RIAA. With sales of over 35 million copies sold worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time." This can be shortened to "With a certification of 11× platinum by the RIAA and sales of over 35 million copies worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "The album was Jackson's first since Forever, Michael (1975)"-- remove "(1975)" as repetitive. Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "one on the US"-- change "US" to "U.S." for consistency Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released with Michael in 2010 and Xscape in 2014." --> "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released: Michael (2010) and Xscape (2014)." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) The table caption must be in title case. For example, "List of Studio albums" --> "List of studio albums" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) I think the format types should be linked at first mention Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC) And the "Records" shouldn't prob be ommitted, for example "Motown" --> "Motown Records" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC) In the Got to Be There column, "World" --> "WW" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) You should probably add Template:Abbr in the abbreviations, for example {{Abbr|WW|Worldwide}} which creates WW Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC) You can omit the abbreviation in the section heading, I think it's too specific and the table caption handles that well Gerald Waldo Luis Is that necessary? I think one editor asked me to add it because it's necessary for mobile phone users. Feel free to correct it or me if they were wrong.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC) I opened the mobile version, and I also have the Wikipedia App. None of them omit the table caption, so yeah. GeraldWL 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC) I think "List of Compilations albums" must be "List of compilation albums" without the s, considering our article for it is called Compilation album. Keep the section name tho, the s is valid there Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) I've worked in an electronic store for two years, but I've never heard of "CD/DVD". Mind clarifying? Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC) The references are inconsistent. For telegraph.co.uk, you have "Daily Telegraph" in one reference but "Telegraph" in another. You also need to determine whether you want the publication name to be linked or not. Also titles that are in foreign language must have a translation in the "trans-title" parameter. Gerald Waldo Luis The telegraph issues are fixed. Can you please provide the reference numbers where the publication and a trans-title parameter are needed?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Sure, it's ref 60, 107, 147, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 161, and 165 for the trans-title. There's also some other foreign-language citations without a language parameter. For the publication, you have ref 2 (CNN), ref 7 (RIAA, which must be referred to by its full name), ref 10 (Simon), ref 11 (New Yorker), ref 15 (Grammy.com must be changed to Grammy Awards), and many more unlinked but in other places linked. There's also consistency: ABC News is in =website at the first citation but is =publisher on others. The list is honestly exhaustive, so I can help you fix it if you want. GeraldWL 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Gerald Waldo Luis I am open to any assistance on the remaining issues and bettering any part of this article. Please, be my guest. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Gerald Waldo Luis I have fixed the publication issues and added trans- title parameter for references 60 and 106. I don’t believe that the remaining need a trans-title parameter since they do not have a title in foreign languages. Please have a look at my edits and please provide the reference numbers if there are more issues. Thanks.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry TheWikiholic for the delay; it looks all good for me now! GeraldWL 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• I'm not convinced that Jackson released two posthumous albums, he wasn't alive to do that...

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comparable figures should be all numerals or all words (numbers of each type of album...)

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "later known as The Jacksons" for consistency, shouldn't that be "the Jacksons"?

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "still part of The Jackson 5" etc etc.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "was certified Gold by the" you've mentioned "certification" before. so the link should be there and not on "Gold".

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• " on the Billboard Pop Albums Chart and " consistency needed on format of Billboard here. Check all others.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• "both the U.S. and the Australian ARIA charts" this implies that there are ARIA charts in the US.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "U.S.’ best-selling album for two years" awkward, perhaps "best-selling album in the United States for two years"

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The album's success set the standard for the music industry" what does that even mean? And the linked article relates to the success of the Thriller video an its impact, not the album per se.

Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• What is ref 36 supposed to be saying?

Reference 36 is supposed to say that the album was certified 8-time platinum by RIAA.

• You have "5 million" and "six million" in the same paragraph. Be consistent and compliant with MOS.

Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "It has sold over six million copies" the source says "reportedly six million".

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and The Essential Michael Jackson" why is "The" outside the link?!

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "until at least 2017" it's 2022, so what now?

Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the lead reviewed. Plenty to do here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Please have a look at my edits, and let me know if I missed something. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

• "Since his death, ... posthumously released" — doesn't these both mean same?

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Jackson made his debut at the age of five" — which year? 1963?

No, 1964. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "In the same year" — remove 'In'

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "was certified Gold" v. "was certified silver" — Is there a reason why 'G' is capitalized but 's' is not?

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "four years later in 1979" — In this particular case, I don't think mentioning year is important. We know 1975 + 4 = 1979

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "It influences artists" — Should be in past tense, I think

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "9× Platinum" v. "34× platinum" v. "11× platinum" v. "8× platinum" — check capitalization for all of these as well as others

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• "on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart" — Italicize Billboard?

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• A 5 paragraphed lead is bit too long. MOS:LEAD advises lead to be generally no longer than 4 paragraphs.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• For all those empty cells, wouldn't it be better to just add a center aligned em-dash?

Kavyansh.Singh I've referenced a few FL discographies, and none of them use center-aligned em-dash in empty cells like sales or certifications.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ref#8: needs en-dash instead of that hyphen

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ref#54: "Michael Jackson - Australian Albums Chart": needs en-dash instead of that hyphen

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Check for same for all the references, like Ref#56, #57, #58, #59, #60, #68, etc. (Not a full source review)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

All my comments are probably resolved. I'll check back later if I can support. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Roman emperors

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk), Avilich (talk) and Tintero21 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list because it is well-sourced, comprehensive and clearly presents the information it is supposed to. This list has been the subject of five past failed featured list nominations but the last one was in 2008, 13 years ago. The main criticisms in the past have been format issues, lack of clarity and very few references. All of these issues have in my mind been sorted in the present version. The present version has clear references for every entry as well as a clear and referenced set of inclusion criteria (per WP:LISTCRITERIA). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The lead has no references at all

Fixed - the lead is now fully referenced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are rows where colour is used to indicate something - per MOS:COLOUR, colour alone cannot be used in this way, it needs to be accompanied by a symbol for the benefit of people who cannot distinguish the colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Do you have any suggestions for how this could be done in a seamless way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the question relates to my second point, then for every row which currently uses colour to indicate ambiguous legitimacy, you also need to add a symbol such as †. I would suggest that the best place for it is after the emperor's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Added hash-tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Seconding what ChrisTheDude said about color - {{dagger}} is an easy way to add a non-color indication.

I understand why this is necessary but I worry that the † symbol in particular could cause misunderstanding since this list deals with people (could perhaps be taken as an indication for a specific type of death) of different religions (could perhaps be misunderstood as marking them as Christians). Would something like § work just as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Hash-tag}} might be best, as it definitely meets accessibility requirements and I don't think would carry any other implications. Don't forget to add it to the key as well as the rows -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. 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.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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. ! width="17%" |Name becomes !scope=col width="17%" |Name.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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. |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small> becomes !scope=row |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small>. (Although it's the 2nd column, not the 1st, I'd go with making the name column primary since the image one isn't really "identifying" the row on its own.)

This has the side-effect of making all the text in the cell bold and making the background darker. Is there a way to add row scopes while avoiding this effect? I can't get it to work properly with the rows that already are darker in color either. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if you change the table's "class" from {| class="wikitable" to {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" it should prevent the style change. --PresN 16:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Required some tweaking and experimentation but I succeeded; done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• The images need alt text. There's already a name in the second column, so the alt text can be as simple as |alt=bust.

Added alt text to all images. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be all of these addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Are there more accessibility concerns or is the article as it is now fine from this standpoint? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Taking this up. User:Iazyges (User talk:Iazyges)
• No objection to inclusion of any sources, will pass once issues are dealt with.

Missing bibliography

• Mathisen 1998 (citation 28) is missing a bibliography
• Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 241–242; Grant, pp. 188–189; Watson 1999, pp. 110, 225, 250 (n. 46) (citation 91) Watson 1999 lacks a bibliography.
• Kaegi 2003, p. 194. (citation 157) lacks a bibliography

Misc

• Kent, J. P. C. (1959) is not used by any citation.
• Standardize usage of location.

Titles needing translation

• Kienast, Dietmar; Werner Eck & Matthäus Heil give translate title
• Schreiner, Peter (1977) translate title
• Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) translate title.
• Estiot, Sylviane (1996) translate title
• Hartmann, Udo (2002) translate title
• Rea, J. R. (1972)
• Seibt, Werner (2018)
• Stein, Arthur (1924

Notes

• Hammond 1957 (citation 48) breaks when 1957 is included (it is manually cited to just Hammond with a ref= parameter), so I've removed the date from the cite.

  Same with Schreiner, pp. 157–159. (citation 209)

• Cameron 1988 was given date of 1998 in bibliography incorrectly (citation was correct 1988 date); I've corrected it.
• Schreiner, Peter (1977) and Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) ISBNs were swapped, now fixed.
• Wu, Chiang-Yuan (2016) the google book link gives publisher as Springer, WorldCat only gives multiple Palgrave Macmillan, not sure why this is the case.

Palgrave Macmillan is a subsidiary of Springer so that's probably why. In any event, previewing the book itself on Google Books and scrolling down shows that the book itself uses "Palgrave Macmillan" so I think that's what's best to use. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Iazyges I've added the missing bibliography, it looks to me that you yourself and Tintero21 handled the other issues. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Passing source review. User:Iazyges

More comments from ChrisTheDude

• "absence of constitutional criterias" - criteria is already a plural word so shouldn't have an S added
• "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and ruled undisputed" => "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and who ruled undisputed"
• What's with the bar (for want of a better term) under Geta's entry (and in other places)?
• "Brother of (more likely) half-brother of Tacitus" - think this should be "Brother or, more likely, half-brother of Tacitus"
• "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III' death" => "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III's death"
• "revolted against Michael VII on 2 July/October 1077" - what does this mean (the date)?
• "it is customary among scholars of the later empire to only regard as emperors only those who actually ruled" - can lose one of those "only"s
• I think that's all I got - fantastic work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  The "bars" are meant to distinguish non-dynastic emperors. Maybe we should explain it somewhere, probably on "List structure" or in note. The alternative would be to make many more tables, even if they only have one emperor (like in the List of English monarchs). IMO it looks clean the way it is. About the 2 July/October question (I edited that section), it's mean to be “2 July or 2 October”. Tintero21 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Should be all of these addressed. I've followed Tintero21's suggestion and added to the "List structure" section for what the bars represent - I don't think there is a cleaner way to represent dynastic breaks with non-dynastic rulers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Iazyges

Lede

• The Roman emperors were the rulers of the Roman Empire dating from the granting of the title Augustus to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus by the Roman Senate in 27 BC,[1][2] after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar. "dating from" lends itself better to a "start-end" structure which this sentence lacks, finishing in past, rather than the actual end, perhaps change dating from to simply after?

Changed to "after". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• regions of the empire were ruled by provincial governors answerable to and authorized by the Senate and People of Rome suggest the Senate and People of Rome authorized provincial governors, who answered only to them, to rule regions of the empire.

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• continued to be elected in the imperial period, but their authority was subservient to that of the emperor, who also controlled and determined their election may be worth mentioning briefly that often the emperors themselves were the consuls, perhaps Oftentimes, the emperors themselves, or close family, were selected as consul.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• dominus noster 'our lord' suggest dominus noster (our lord)

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Depending on the author, the Dominate period of the empire is considered to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine. author could mean primary or secondary source as written, perhaps Historians consider the Dominate period of the empire to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine, depending on the author.

Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• with the division usually based in geographic terms suggest with the division usually based on geographic regions

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• In the centuries that followed, historians typically refer to the empire as the "Byzantine Empire", suggest Historians typically refer to the empire in the centuries that followed as the "Byzantine Empire". for clarity regarding timeline and primary/secondary sources.

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• IMO the lede should mention Justinian re-conquered a good portion of the empire, perhaps a sentence or two before The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests.; maybe Under Justinian, in the sixth century, a large portion of the Western Empire was retaken, including Italy, Africa, and part of Spain. Most of this territory was soon lost, including Spain in 624, Africa in 698, and a large portion of Italy under his successor, Justin II, although Italy was not fully lost until 1071. The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests

Added in with some minor alterations. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• The article should also give a sentence or two to the fact that many pretenders continued the claim to be Roman emperors, and mention that nations such as the Ottomans also made this claim.

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Legitimacy

• A vast majority of emperors also died by non-natural means suggest Very few emperors died of natural causes,

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• considered legitimate began their careers as usurpers suggest changing careers to rule

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• as demonstrated already in the suggest changing already to either soon or removing it =,

Removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• wrestle power away suggest seize

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion

• I've removed the usurper tag from Basiliscus as I don't think he is really considered as such by the main body of sources; he was the legitimate emperor as recognized by the political, religious, and military establishments of the time, including the senate. He just pissed all of them off at such a prodigious pace he only lasted 19 months. While the PLRE does refer to Basiliscus as a usurper in places (sometimes for differentiation I think, given that there was a Basiliscus as an opposing caesar during his reign), in his own section he is recognized as Augustus.

Yeah, I think that's fair. I think a lot of authors are a bit inconsistent in who they deem to be a usurper or legitimate. Does not make a lot of sense that Saloninus appears to be counted more often than Procopius. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Should have had a cooler name, I guess. User:Iazyges

Guess he should have ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have no other issues with the article, great effort put in, other than some prose issues (and source issues, under a different cap), I think the article is ready for featured status. User:Iazyges

Thank you for taking the time to go through this. All of the comments above should be addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92

• The fourth paragraph of the lead has more depth than necessary about the empire's borders, which seems undue since that's not what the article's about, and there was plenty of expansion and change in earlier centuries too.

I would argue that border changes are necessary information (and IIRC Iazyges also argued for this) - the changes described in the fourth paragraph are quite dramatic and what territory these rulers controlled can be construed to be relevant information. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there not anything similar to Territorial evolution of the United States for the Roman Empire? Agree that it's relevant, but when you're talking about many changes over an enormous area over hundreds of years, I'm not sure this is the best format.

Yes, I understand. There is Borders of the Roman Empire but it does not really fulfill that purpose (and doing so at the same level of detail as Territorial evolution of the United States would probably be impossible). I've tried shortening the border changes part considerably and put some of the detail in a note, does that work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• The section "list structure" is not really about list structure, but rather inclusion criteria

I've renamed it and made it a subsection of the "legitimacy" section since it more or less follows on from that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• There are over 100 uses of "c." with a tooltip for circa; this seems excessive to have so many tooltips, especially in consecutive instances

Would it be more appropriate to remove all instances of the tooltip except for the first one, or to keep the first tooltip in each table but remove the rest? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Keeping the first in each table would be fine. Reywas92^Talk 19:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• There inconsistency in unknown lifespan formatting, including (aged over 62?), (aged approx. 55), (aged approx. 76?), (aged c. 27)

Should be consistent now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Reywas92^Talk 16:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar". This is vague and does not help the reader. I would delete.

Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• "the position gradually grew more monarchical and authoritarian". A person can be authoritian, not a position.

replaced "the position" with "emperors". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• "In the late third century, after the Crisis of the Third Century" Repetition of third century. I think you could delete "In the late third century".

Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• " Diocletian formalized and embellished the recent manner of imperial rule. The period thereafter was characterized by the explicit increase of authority in the person of the emperor, and the use of the style dominus noster (our lord)." This is vague and wordy. How about "Diocletion increased the authority of the emperor and adopted the title dominus noster (our lord)".

Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• "and there were no true objective legal criteria for imperial acclamation beyond proclamation or acceptance by the Roman army, the event that most often came to signify imperial accession". "legal criteria for imperial acclamation" sounds wrong. It also does not seem from what you say below to signify imperial accession. Proclamation of a general by his troops was often the first stage, but as you say below he had to defeat his rivals to be regarded as legitimate.

I see what you mean; changed to just "there were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by the Roman army". The point is that there was no legal obligations emperors had to fulfill before being proclaimed that stopped any successful general or politician from being proclaimed emperor by their supporters. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• You say that Tiberius was co-emperor with Heraclonas in 641, but Tiberius is not listed. Then Constantine IV ruled with Heraclius and another Tiberius (659–681), but neither is listed. If they do not qualify for the list, then surely they do not qualify to be shown as co-emperors?

There is a note hidden away in the entry for Magnus Maximus that somewhat explains this; co-emperors in the Byzantine period constitutionally held the same title as senior emperors (i.e. both were basileus) and they thus qualify as emperors, both in a general sense and per the inclusion criteria. They are however rarely listed as such in lists of emperors in WP:RS (in contrast to ancient Roman junior co-emperors such as Diadumenian) and are not counted in enumerations of the senior emperors (Tiberius III would be Tiberius V if counted "correctly"). Here we solved the conundrum by not giving co-emperors full entries of their own but still mentioning them - this appears to be how some other lists handle things (the List of English monarchs for instance includes Henry the Young King but not with a full entry). They can't have full entries in the list because that will produce an unrecognizable list and confuse readers in regard to the numberings but they should not be wholly excluded either because then the list is not comprehensive enough. Perhaps this could be solved with adding some more clear explanation somewhere? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest a footnote for co-emperors who do not have an entry, as with your note explaining the approximate dates in the year of the six emperors. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To clarify; an individual footnote for every co-emperor without an entry (could this help to solve the point below as well) or an overarching footnote for all of them explaining their status as junior rulers (perhaps a slightly altered version of the footnote already in Magnus Maximus's entry)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I was not thinking of separate footnotes for each one, but a single footnote, as with {{Efn||name=sixemperors}}, for co-emperors who do not have their own entry in the table, explaining the reason for their exclusion. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Added a note with explanation to all entries that mention co-emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if you distinguished between different emperors with the same name such as Tiberius, for example "Tiberius, son of Heraclian" and "Tiberius, son of Constans II"

I've added "son of" distinguishers to cases were confusion is likely (several co-emperors with the same name in quick succession, co-emperors with the same name as senior emperors etc.). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Dethroned and blinded Constantine in 797". Perhaps worth adding that Irene dethroned and blinded her son.

Added "dethroned and blinded her son Constantine in 797". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• You say that Isaac I Komnenos abdicated and died six months later, but below you say that he designated his successor on his deathbed.

Changed "on his deathbed" to "during his abdication". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Retired as a nun in November 1071" This implies that she retired from being a nun. Presumably you mean to become a nun.

Yes, changed to "became a nun". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Deposed in a palace coup while imprisoned by the Seljuk Sultanate, captured and blinded on 29 June 1072" You should say that this was after his release by the Seljuks.

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Great-grandson of Alexios I, proclaimed emperor by the people of Constantinople after refusing an order of arrest issued by Andronikos I, then captured, deposed and had Andronikos I killed" This is unclear. Who was the order of arrest for. Presumable you mean that he captured etc Andronikos, but this is ungrammatical.

Rewrote the entry. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Refused an order of arrest issued by Andronikos I, whereafter he was proclaimed emperor by the people of Constantinople. Captured, deposed and killed Andronikos I. This is still unclear. Did Andronikos order his arrest or order him to arrest someone else? If it was to arrest him then "resisted" would be clearer than "refused" Also, "whereafter" is correct but described by OED as "Now formal or archaic". Maybe "after which". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed to your suggestions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Heraclius transitioned to issuing administrative documents in Greek." This is bureaucratic gobbledygook. Maybe "Heraclius issued his later administrative documents in Greek." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed In 629, Heraclius transitioned to issuing administrative documents in Greek to From 629 onwards, Heraclius issued administrative documents in Greek., which keeps the year of the change. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this review still waiting on something? I'm happy to take a look if the coords feel like more comments are needed, but frankly, the reviews seem to all be there. Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (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, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [5].

---

List of prime ministers of Italy

Nominator(s): Nick.mon (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

When I first edited this article on March 2012, the list had a plenty of problems: a lot of work has been done during these 9 years and I sincerely believe the list has been improved so much. Some months ago, I submitted to you a first candidacy and you rightly rejected it. Now, I've corrected those errors and, in my humble opinion, the list now meets all the criteria to be considered a FL. Thank you for your attention, Nick.mon (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead No article should start with "This article contains...."  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title with" => "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title to"  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) That sentence is unsourced  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Since 1946, 29 men assumed the office in 75 years" => "Since 1946, 29 men have assumed the office in 75 years"  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) The lead overall seems a bit thin. There must be more to mention eg the longest-serving PM, the shortest-serving, other notable facts.....  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) That's it on the lead, I will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2021 (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.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• 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. ! width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait becomes !scope=col width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• 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. ! 1 becomes !scope=row | 1.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 13:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

;Comments on the tables and refs Can you split the key into multiple columns so that it doesn't extend so far down the page?  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Small text should not be used  Partly done: increased size of term duration. I see that also other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany or List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom use small text in the tables. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Below each PM's name you have dates for born-died, but below each king's name you have dates which (I presume) indicate his reign. Can you make the latter clearer, because at first glance I thought that Victor Emmanuel II died aged 17......?  Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Notes b to g are not full sentences so should not have full stops  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Why do most refs have retrieval dates but some do not?  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) What is " Denis Mack Smith, Cavour (1985)."? A book? A journal?  Fixed it is a book. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Surely there's a better source for the first PM than yourdictionary.com.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC) N Removed -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Comments Ok thank you, I've tried to solve some of these problems. -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Ping me when everything is sorted and I will re-visit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: ok, I think everything is sorted! :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)  Comment: What about the references column? I think it might be removed. Since all the 100+ references are just links to pages of the same archive website [6], it think it might be sufficient to add a link to the homepage of this website, e.g. in a last row in both tables. Furthermore, other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany do not show such references column in their tables. --Yakme (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Simply using the frontpage of storia.camera.it as a single "source" would absolutely not be acceptable in a FL as the frontpage by itself does not reference any of the info in the tables. List of chancellors of Germany was promoted more than three years ago and I don't think would pass FLC in its current form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: For the Republican period, I found this link which contains all the governments, and also links to each specific government where one can find more details. --Yakme (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Why not just leave the references as they currently are? There's nothing wrong with them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Hi! So, what do you think, doest the list fit with the FL criteria? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Hi Chris! Any news? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

About......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: About the candidacy. I mean, I remember that in the previous one, many users answered, what can I do to re-start the discussion? -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You could contact other users who commented before and ask them to take a look at this one. Are there any appropriate Wikiprojects where you could invite people to come and take a look? WP:ITALY? WP:POLITICS? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123, Reywas92, and Aza24: Excuse me for pinging you here, but some months ago you commented the first candidacy of this page. During these months, I followed your suggestions and I sincerly believe that it's ready to become a FL now. I'd be glad to hear your opinions. Thank you so much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments below. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Images need alt text
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• "non consecutively" → "non-consecutively"
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• "who served as Prime Minister" → "who served as prime minister"
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• A single row should only have one cell with ! scope="row", as having multiple row headers doesn't make sense
  •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Key needed for abbreviations in "Composition" column (i.e., what are "UL", "PR", "UECI", and so on?)
• Small text should be avoided as much as possible – at the very least, it does not need to be used in the "Time in office" and "Composition" columns
  •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Much of the information for the "Party" and "Composition" columns seems to be unsourced. For example, source 15 clearly states the start and end dates, and it makes it clear that it was the fourth Cavour government, but I don't see any information about the parties leading the government. Most of the sources from storia.camera.it use the same format, so it's an issue throughout the list. Where is this information sourced from?

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi RunningTiger123, thanks for your comment. I've a few doubts about the key for the "Composition" column. There're dozens of parties involved in Italian governments, throughout 160 years of history, how can we create a key for all of them? Sorry, but I fear it's almost impossibile and in my humble opinion the table would look awful. Regarding the small text, we already reduced it a lot, and to be honest, it's used in some others FL in the "time in office" rows, like List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. I'll try to found some better sources for the parties. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the key: WP:PLA states that we should "avoid Easter egg links, which require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on." If the user has to click the link to see what party is being discussed, we're not following that. Some of the abbreviations could be grouped with the existing key; for instance, you could write   Christian Democracy (DC) instead of just   Christian Democracy.

Regarding the small text: Many of the lists with small text were promoted to FL status a while ago and do not reflect current standards. (For instance, the list of UK prime ministers was promoted over 15 years ago.) MOS:FONTSIZE makes it clear that "reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly", and in this case, I don't see a good reason for using it; the smaller text in the "Time in office" and "Composition" columns doesn't make the table appreciably narrower, so I don't know why it needs to remain. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Reywas92

• "During this period" What period? This hasn't been introduced yet
• "both branches of Parliament"->"both houses of Parliament"
• Is "Government of National Unity" the appropriate term to use in this context? The capital letters imply a proper noun. Ricasoli II Cabinet says it was called Government of National Reconciliation. Boselli and Orlando had large coalitions but they don't appear to be "national unity".

Beyond the comments above, otherwise pretty nice! Reywas92^Talk 04:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92:  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd add I don't think the legislature and monarch/president columns should have the !, which is for row headers. Otherwise support, thanks for your improvements from before! Any comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "as expressed in the Albertine Statute", This sounds a bit odd to me. How about "as laid down in the Albertine Statute"?
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The current officeholder is Mario Draghi". This will become out of date. It should be "As of February 2022, the current officeholder is Mario Draghi".
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• I think you need a section above the table explaining the headings. 'Party' is presumably that of the prime minister as opposed to 'composition' being that of the cabinet, but this should be explained. 'Government' is misleading as most articles only cover a list of the cabinet. Legislatures links to articles about general elections. 'Cabinet' and 'General election' would be more accurate headings.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Starting with Cavour at IV and legislature at VIII seems odd and not explained in the articles linked to. Maybe it refers to Sardinia but there is no continuity with the rest of Italy.
  •  Done, The first government of the Kingdom of Italy is officially known as Cavour IV, while the first legislature is the VIII. I know it sounds weird, but I've tried to explain it with footnotes. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• The article looks fine apart from the headings. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Did you see the last set of comments? Are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 16:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Nick.mon nudge. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've already updated the page, I'm just trying to figure out how to solve the "Party / Coalition" section. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• I have a natural dislike of single sentence paragraphs. I think you could/should" merge the first two paras of the lead.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• "officeholder was Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, who took the office " officeholder ... took the office is repetitive.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• "unification of Italy" is there an article for this we could link?
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• "the King of Italy, as" vs "The prime minister of Italy" why the inconsistent capitalisation of job titles?
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• "abolishment" reads odd, even if it might be right, why isn't it simply abolition?
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• "the Italian Republic" could link.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• "is currently" see WP:ASOF.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Might be worth noting that not one single woman has ever held the office.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• "who stayed in power for more than nine years non-consecutively" stayed ... non-consecutively is odd for me. Perhaps "who held the position ..." or something.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• I assume † means died in office but that's not in the key. Check you're using alt text for the {{dagger}} symbol too.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• E.g. in Giolitti's entry, it says "with PSI's external support", but where is that in the reference? Similar comment applies to all such notes.
• The abbreviations, such as PSI, PDSI, all need to be added in a key, not just rely on the wikilinks.
  • The problem here is that we have dozens of parties involved in Italian goverments. I'll try to do something to add them to the key, but I sincerly think it would be quite confusing. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Refs 6 and 8 have spaced hyphens, should be unspaced per MOS.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Third biblio entry needs an en-dash in the year range.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Are you still working on this nomination? --PresN 00:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (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, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Most Played Juke Box Race Records number ones of 1947

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's the latest instalment in the history of Billboard's R&B charts, which (as with the previous year) were thoroughly dominated by the sound of Louis Jordan. Feedback as ever gratefully received...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Pseud 14

Another great piece about the R&B charts instalment, I only have very minor comments:

• R&B and rock and roll. -- would pipe R&B as I think this is the first mention in the lead as a genre.
  • it's actually the second, but the first wasn't linked either, so I have linked it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• had ended by the end of the following year -- "ended" and "end" in close proximity, perhaps had ended the following year could be an alternative.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all from me! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

You thought you were safe just because you remembered the caption this time? Guess again, because something new has been added to these reviews!

• If the row header cell spans multiple rows, then use scope=rowgroup instead of scope=row.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• "to the Four Tunes" → Shouldn't "The" be capitalized?
  • Per MOS:THEBAND, no -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• "for the singer nicknamed "Cleanhead" → "for Vinson, nicknamed "Cleanhead"
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• That's all, really nice list. AryKun (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @AryKun: Thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, nothing else I could find. AryKun (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: - just to let you know, I will be logging off shortly and will be off WP until some time on Friday. If any more comments are raised here, I will address them upon my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (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, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [8].

---

International Film Music Critics Association Award for Best Original Score for a Video Game or Interactive Media

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it's a complete coverage of the award. I have split the table into individual tables, illustrated this article with pictures of the composers, and checked references. Thanks to User:TophatCounselor who built the first version of this article. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by A. C. Santacruz

• Just noting that many of the images are either too vertically large or the subject seems small within the picture, so I would highly recommend cropping the images and reuploading to commons for use here in order to include only the bust of the winners. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, many of these performers don't have headshots on Commons, and many of the images are too low resolution to crop. For example, File:WataruHokoyama2009.jpg has File:WataruHokoyama2009_(cropped).jpg but that's just trash... ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 03:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • When I combined the tables, I removed some of the more questionable images, and tried to stick with either action shots or headshots.~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Another comment, it seems to me having both the section headers and the list titles (2020s + Awards in the 2020s) is redundant. I'd suggest removing the table titles. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Converted to screen reader only. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 22:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments: Two quick things that stand out are the use of individual tables (a single large table with a year column is generally preferred) and the placement of winners (winners are generally placed before all other nominations in a given year). RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a discussion about the single table vs multiple tables? I went multiple tables because I've been told it screen readers to use rowspans and colspans (I actually was trying to find a way around it for citations...) as well as allow the article to be illustrated. Of course, I can convert it back.

As for the row winners, done. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 03:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The single table format has been the trend for a while; ChrisTheDude recently traced it at another FLC. I've also used single-table formats for most of my FLCs, and I've found it useful because it allows sorting to be added. I wouldn't mind something like the FL Academy Award for Best Actress, which splits by decade, but splitting by year just adds too much whitespace, in my opinion. As to the rowspan/colspan part, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but those should be added to the tables. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I have combined the tables, thanks for the information. I'll keep it in mind for the future. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from ~~~~

*Wow, what an unwieldy title, but I guess there's nothing you can do about that :-) Yeah, I wish I could shorten it. Abbreviations are about the only option, unless I want to write to the IFMCA </kidding-kinda>.... For me, the single table format should definitely be used. Having 15 separate tables (which will only increase year on year) does not look good to me, and in at least one case it creates unnecessary whitespace as the image alongside the table is taller than the table. Fixed While I prefer the multiple table format, it does appear that consensus is against me. The lead feels a little bit "thin" to me, is there no more that can be said? Have there been multiple-time winners? Multiple-time nominees? Fixed - Could you take a quick look and make sure it reads right? I've been staring at it way too long... "In the tables below, winners are marked by a light green background and a double-dagger symbol (double-dagger)." - I would place this under the "winners and nominees" header, not in the lead Fixed Images captions which are not complete sentences (which is pretty much all of them) should not have full stops Fixed All the image captions from 2010 onwards still have full stops...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I have no clue what happened, but I've removed them again... and this time made sure it saved! ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Some of the refs list no work/publisher eg 1, 29, 30, 31, 32 Fixed There's no need to list the same group/body/whatever as both the work and publisher eg ref 8, 9, 10, etc Fixed IMFCA is not the author of refs 2, 3, 5, etc, because IMFCA is not a person Kinetophone is not the author of ref 14, 16 or 18 because Kinetophone is not a person. Also, Wordpress is not the publisher, because that is just a website hosting platform. Fixed Also, if it's "only" a Wordpress site, can you confirm what makes it a reliable source? If you click "about us" on the site, you get redirected to the bio of Eleni Mitsiaki, who is a member of the IFMCA as well as a published journalist. She would then be a "recognized expert" under WP:RSEDITORIAL. That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your review. I've addressed many of the comments, and will address the others this evening. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC) And addressed the rest. Thank you for taking the time for the review! ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• 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. | Party becomes !scope=col | Party.
• 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. | style=" color:white;" | 1 becomes !scope=row style="color:white;" | 1.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 19:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thank you for the review! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 23:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support and (pass) source review from Gerald Waldo Luis

Not sure what intrigued me to make these comments; the fact that the title is uniquely long, or that I am fond of soundtracks. But anyways. GeraldWL 07:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 02:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

* In the first paragraph's quote, is the "[...]" really needed, considering you start the quote mid-sentence? "The award period" --> "The awarding period" Suggest establishing in the lead when was the award introduced In the image caption, "Logo" should be decapitalized "As of 2022, 58 composers have been nominated for the International Film Music Critics Association Award for Best Original Score for a Video Game or Interactive Media." Shouldn't this be the first sentence of the paragraph? "Austin Wintory has been nominated eight times and won three. [...] Wintory is the only composer to have been nominated twice in the same year, which happened in 2016." --> "Austin Wintory has been nominated eight times and won three; he is the only composer to have been nominated twice in the same year, which happened in 2016." In the infobox's "Most nominations" parameter, Wintory can be unlinked since it's duplicate linking. "Company(s)" --> "Compan(y/ies)" "Sources" can be changed with Template:Refh "(theme)" --> "(theme music)" For the abbreviations of the platforms ("iOS", "Linux" etc) I think they should be linked. In some of the image captions you describe what the person is doing in said image, while in others you dont; I suggest dropping those descriptions.

Additionally I've done a source spotcheck and they all look good, the sources are also reliable. However some concerns:

• In ref 1, "| IFCMA: International Film Music Critics Association" is redundant
• All "IFCMA"s must be extended to "International Film Music Critics Association"
  • I've expanded it for the publisher. I opted to leave titles with "IFCMA" as that is the official title of the article in all cases.
• In the Variety reference you link to the Variety article, but you don't do the same for other refs. Also "Variety Media LLC" must be "Penske Media Corporation"; similar case with the AwardsCircuit, ColonneSonore.net, and TheWrap refs. LLCs also don't have to be mentioned.
• If ref 12 is a dead link and no archives can be found, it must be replaced with a different source.
• AwardsDaily, AwardsWatch, and Massively Overpowered should be in website parameter instead of publisher.

All done, except for a couple of notes above. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 19:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks all good now. Support and source pass. Nice work! GeraldWL 02:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A single comment from Panini!

Accessibility and sources look good per the two above me, so only one thing is barring my support; I find it quite odd that Austin Wintory doesn't have a photo here, despite having the most awards and nominations. Could this image be cropped down and used? Panini! • 🥪 22:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There seems to already be a cropped version available, here. GeraldWL 01:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Done Image (re-)added. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 05:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Support. Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 13:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [9].

---

Pershing House

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List because this is an iconic historic structure in San Antonio, Texas, that dates back to the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. When it was originally built, it was called "Quarters No. 6, Staff Post". After General John J. Pershing lived there for only a few months, it bore his name. I first wrote this article in 2012, and have recently worked to bring it to FL quality. The issue of the remaining redlinks was addressed at Peer Review. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

;Comments "The Department of Texas continued to be an official military department until 1917." - source? ✓ - I've changed it to "early 20th Century" and that is sourced at the end of the sentence. "two-story house" - in BrEng this would be "two-storey house", but maybe the spelling you have is valid in AmEng, can you confirm? ✓ Merriam-Webster.dictionary It's American English. "has eleven rooms and six-and-a-half baths" - six and a half bathROOMS surely? Also, is this in addition to the 11 or included therein? In American, it's referred to as baths. Also, in America, when describing how many rooms a house has, the count doesn't include bathrooms. ✓ The NRHP registration form says, "eleven (ll ) rooms and six and one half baths" - American real estate terminology. I've changed it slightly to be identical to the form. "but the names on plaque were completed" =>"but the names on the plaque were completed" ✓ Can't see a compelling reason to have one of the two keys in a smaller font  Comment: This is a browser view issue, depending on specific browser and specific zoom/no zoom. I get different looks on my different browsers, with no zooming in place. Zooming also changes it. I can get many different looks on my end. Maybe the shorter answer is that the Military ranks are just a straight bulleted list. But there are so many cemeteries, that it necessitated a table style for ease of use. It would have taken up unnecessary length to just bullet-point list all those cemeteries. Image column in the table should not be sortable ✓ Fixed - thanks. Can't really see a reason to have brackets round the birth/death dates ✓ Maybe this is American style. Women in Aviation International Pioneer Hall of Fame, Arizona Women's Hall of Fame Texas Women's Hall of Fame "Commissioner of Police of New York City. (1895–1897)" - full stop is in the wrong place ✓ "1911 Commander of the Department of the Lakes." - not a complete sentence, doesn't need a full stop ✓ "Commanding officer at the capture of Mount Dajo, Philippine Islands, 6–8 Mar 1906." - same here. Check for other examples ✓ Summeralll note has a random line break in it ✓ The second half of the table feels like it has a lot fewer wikilinks and it seems like some valid ones are missing, almost like the linking just peters out. Harry S Truman isn't linked, for example, neither is George C Marshall. ✓ Yeah, it was more than a few. I added. — Maile (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC) That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

I gave it a review at peer review, and am happy to give it another read:

• Try to keep the lead section not more than 4 paragraphs.

✓

• "the residence of 16 commanding officers ." — erroneous space

✓

• "Those who called it home were some of the most accomplished leaders in the United States Army prior to their being given charge of the base." — "Those who called it home" reads a bit odd.

✓ shortened it to simply "They were some of ...".

• "only John J. Pershing and George Washington ever held this rank" — do we need to mention George Washington again in the key?

✓ removed.

• "1881–83" v. "1902–1904" — consistency needed. There are several other similar inconsistencies in the dashes.

✓

• Is the Facebook link in "External links" section useful?

✓ removed.

• We still have few instances of "WW I", that should be changed to "World War I"

✓ but I know found one.

• "Spanish–American Warr" — I think 'Warr' is 'War'

✓ Done with the above issues. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking good overall. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the list for promotion as a FL. Would appreciate if you could review this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

reference info for Pershing House

unnamed refs	59
named refs	3
self closed	4
Refn templates	1
cs1 refs	98
cs1 templates	80
sfn templates	7
use xxx dates	dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates	21
cs1|2 mdy dates	2
cs1|2 dmy access dates	68
cs1|2 mdy access dates	11
cs1|2 dmy archive dates	74
cs1|2 mdy archive dates	3
cs1|2 ymd archive dates	1
cs1|2 last/first	7
List of cs1 templates cite book (2) cite news (19) cite web (59)
List of sfn templates sfn (7)
explanations

This citation template misuses |location=. That parameter is to hold the publisher's location (city usually) when the source was published; does not usually apply to on-line sources.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Removed - thanks for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "were initially created 1953–1955 by Julia Cotton White": I don't know what the source means by "wife of the Fourth Army commander, 1953-55 made a gift", and I don't know what the other sources say. "created by 1955" or "created in the 1950s" would work if the sources are a little fuzzy on this point.

"Fourth Army" is just one of those military designations, by geographic location I think. It's all the US Army, but he was in charge of the Fourth Army part of it.— Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• "DSM, Distinguished Service Medal": The column that these appear in is not sortable, but you've got "DSM" showing up before "Distinguished Service Medal", which doesn't look right.

Changed for consistency. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the alpha-order sorting of the "Rank" column.
• Some of the links to the generals are redirects; this isn't a problem per se, but make sure the links and link text that you've got are what you want.

OK. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. On image issues, I'll defer.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support - for your review, and suggestions. I just now saw this, as RL took priority yesterday. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• First instinct was upon seeing a straightforward article about a house was "how is this a list?" Is there really so little to write about the house itself? As the caption on the table suggests, this is really "Fort Sam Houston commanding officers who lived at Pershing House 1881 through 1973".

• I think its inclusion on the register is secondary to its main task(s), why is it even notable, that needs to be represented up front.

• The NRHP is the only reason it qualified. Without that, it's just government property. If I might, combine these two as an answer for you. I created this in my early, early days of Wikipedia. So, I don't remember if I was advised to make it a list, or it just happened. But every decent list has a lead of sorts. This was on National Register of Historic Places listings in Bexar County, Texas, which are usually listed/written exactly as the US government National Register of Historic Places listings. They didn't name it a list. The PDF source we used titled it "Pershing House", as it is still listed at the Texas Historic Sites Atlas. And with NRHP articles, we tend to go with what the approved Nomination Form contains. This one in particular had two pages of the list of the leaders who lived in the house - rank, name and date of occupancy up through 1973. That was important to NRHP as the plaque listing those names was part of the qualifying inventory of the nomination. And that's why we included it as a list - it was part of the qualifyig aspect. Beyond 1973, we're dealing with BLP issues of military leaders who may still be influential in the government. Since the military tends to keep some information to itself, that is not available to us. But without all those heroes who lived there, the house, no matter how grand, is just a house. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• I do agree with you that lead sentence needed to be punched up a bit. I may have not done what you had in mind, but I did change it so the reader immediately knows its importance. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• "was admitted to the Union" link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Link Comanche. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Consider linking Fort Sill. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "happened in" passive, maybe "took place in" Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Feels like at no point in the lead you say "and this is what is known as Pershing House".

Just added a little, "Architect Alfred Giles designed the general staff quarters, as well as the commanding general's quarters, now known at Pershing House." Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "six-and-one-half baths" don't know what that means.

Apparently, it's American real estate lingo. I refer you to ChrisTheDude's question on that. The NRHP form says "six and one half baths" - generally speaking, that usually means there is not a bathtub, maybe a shower, or maybe just a sink and loo. It varies, but it's American lingo. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "equivalent to $457,931" probably only need nearest $1000. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Constructed in 1881 at a cost of..." this is odd as it comes after descriptions of improvements to it, surely we should try to be chronological here? Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "in the United States Army prior" you mentioned "Army" before so should really use the formal title and link it that time. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "lived in the house.[7] The house has.." new para but still repetitive reading. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "the American Expeditionary Forces in " link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "five-star General of the Armies" link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Isaac D. White, who" why not linked here if he's linked in the table? Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• " General (4 stars) currently located in The Pentagon" what does that mean, these individuals are dead mostly.

Reworded a bit. That comment was for modern-day readers who associate the Chief of Staff generals with the Pentagon. Before The Pentagon was completed in 1943, the Chief of Staff 4-star generals worked out of military base headquarters. After 1943, they have all been stationed at the Pentagon. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 14:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image column has white space on the right of every image, why not just let that column relax to fit?

 Question: Could this be your browser? I don't see that on Firefox, Chrome or the Edge. It's all evenly spaced on all images, and there's nothing in the coding to indicate anything. — Maile (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot from Chrome

I'm using Chrome, and I do see that white space on right side of images. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see it on my Chrome at normal size, 100% zoom. But if I shrink the zoom to what is teeny on my screen - say 70% or less - it starts looking like that. The only column that had a set width was the Notes column. I've removed that. But if that doesn't work, I don't have an answer. — Maile (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It is now looking fine for me. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Done - Good, then. — Maile (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Linked items in a sortable table should be linked every time because after a re-sort, there's no guarantee that the linked item will appear first.

 Question: Not sure what you mean. The Notes column is not sortable. The names in the Names column only appear once for each. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Done - taken care of. — Maile (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Union general during the Civil war," link Union forces and last time you used it I think it was Civil War, not Civil war.

Standardized all mentions as American Civil War. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Several notes are fragments so don't need full stops, check them all.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Peninsula Campaign," our article doesn't capitalise the C.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Spanish-American War" en-dash not hyphen. Several of these.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can link New York City Police Commissioner.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Philippine Insurrection" link?→Philippine–American War

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Link Army Chief of Staff.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Philippine insurrection" capital I for consistency.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) - see above, this is correctly the Philippine–American War

• "Antique Panay in the Philippines." link Antique Panay, and did the name change formally from "Philippine Islands" to "the Philippines" at this point? The Wikipedia article refers to Philippines. If I input Philippine Islands as a link in Wikipedia, it always redirects to Philippines.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Southern Dept. and VIII Corps Area." what's that?

 Comment: The source is the Army. The military routinely rearranges itself and designates different names to different areas, but there is no existing article about the Southern Department. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the term "Southern Dept" altogether, but linked VIII Corps Area. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Veteran of the Spanish–American War and the Philippine–American War," full stop, not comma.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Moro Rebellion" link?

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "American Expeditionary Forces during World War I; Commander 2nd Division and United States Army Field Artillery School." links?

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) except that there is nothing to link for Commander 2nd Division

• "the Guadalcanal Campaign" small c.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Distinguished Service Medal" link.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• 442nd RCT - any point in this as you never use this abbreviation.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) removed

• "Ryukyu Islands" link.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "director J13 operations" what are those?

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) I've added a link. It just means the classification level of workers he oversaw. Just a little American terminology for you. When it comes to the military, everybody has a number and letter somewhere classifying them. That includes civilians who work on military base, so we don't know for sure.

Added note: "director J13 operations" no longer exists in the table. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all I have on a really brisk canter over the article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed all. — Maile (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Why "The Department of Defense" vs. "US Department of the Interior"?

• United States Department of the Interior is over the National Parks Service. That's who certifies whether or not any property is eligible for National Register of Historic Places. And the form literally says "United States Department of the Interior". But if you are asking why I didn't say US Department of Defense elsewhere, for years I've been using the drop-down template in the edit window to format sources. The Joint Base San Antonio site, for instance, literally says it's part of "The Department Of Defense", but does not specify "The United States Department of Defense". Maybe it should be standardized for this nomination, but I've been going with however any government site presents itself. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some refs have day month year, some month day year.

• Per WP:MILFORMAT, I have inserted {:{Use dmy dates}} at the top of the page. That should standardize it. Let me know if I missed anything on this. — Maile (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the MOH winners are sourced to "Military Times" and some to valor.militarytimes.com. They seem the same.

• I found three, and standardized all to "Military Times". — Maile (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 1, " "National Register Information System", I don't see that name on the page and it's just a search page anyway.

• I've done what I can on this, in the fact that I removed the Ref template itself, but left the number. It still goes to a blank page. That's a template that pre-dates my participation on Wikipedia. Have a look at National Register of Historic Places listings in Bexar County, Texas. The number itself comes from the "Date Listed" column that appears on all NRHP sites on Wikipedia, which is considerable. I'm guessing that the number probably comes from a regular listing from the Dept of the Interior. That template was created by @Doncram: more than a decade ago. Maybe they know where this number comes from. I'm thinking there are regular announcements lists that come from the Dept of the Interior, but I really don't know. — Maile (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 2, "Joint Base San Antonio > Information > JBSA History & Fact Sheets" I get a page called "Joint Base San Antonio History". Is the information sourced to this page?

• Yes, but eliminating Ref 1 in the Infobox brought this one up to Ref 1. At the bottom, it lists the bases that now fall under Joint Base San Antonio. The military has a tendency to rearrange its structure when convenient. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 4, the text to be sourced is "After the Texas annexation to the Union in 1845, the United States Army became a steady presence in what was then designated the Department of Texas", and the relevant part of the source, as far as I can see (it is a list of records held) is "Department of Texas, 1853-58. Department of Texas, 1865-66, and subordinate or related commands, including Eastern and Central Districts of Texas, Department of Texas, 1865-66; Subdistrict of San Antonio, 1865- 66; and post at San Antonio, TX, 1865. Department of Texas, 1870-1913, and subordinate or related commands, including District of Upper Brazos, 1877-78." I'd question whether the information is adequately sourced.

•  Question: Not exactly sure what you mean. If you are questioning the site sourcing, it's the records of the US Government, and the site is the US National Archives. That's about as adequate as it's going to be. But feel free to suggest something else if you like. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 3 is asked to support material re Comanche chief Parker. I don't see it in the source material.

• Added source. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The combining of Fort Sam Houston, Randolph Air Force Base, Lackland Air Force Base and Martindale Army Airfield, to create Joint Base San Antonio, took place in 2010." is supposed to be sourced to a page that seems the main page of the Joint Base's website. I don't see anything that says that on that page, though it might be elsewhere on the website.

• That's because the JBSA site keeps flipping its pages around. I've updated the URL, "History of 502d Air Base Wing". At least as of my typing this, it's the history of the combining the bases. Input "2010" in your search bar, and, as of my writing this, that fact is the 3rd click, "On Oct. 1, 2010, Joint Base San Antonio achieved full operational capability." — Maile (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Refs 6 and 7 appear to be the identical document.

• Combined. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 8 nowhere mentions that Augur lived in Pershing House.

• The list on the NRHP form lists him as the first resident in the house. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to pause and await responses. Possibly I'm missing something here, but this seems to be a high levels of quibbles per source.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Yeah ... the result of a decade of little tweaks. I think I should have gone over all of these before, but I'll get back to you. Let's pause this a bit while I fix the above, and have another look through. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Done with your first go-around. In response to your "high levels of quibbles per source", some were my real errors, some of it because of a pre-existing NRHP template issue, and some were questions that needed to be asked. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Wehwalt: I've had my second wind now, and am ready to finish this.

• The sources should now match what is in the Notes column. There are 50-plus names on this list, and I went through all of them. As noted elsewhere above, the NRHP list ends with 1973 - beyond that year, we would be dealing with BLP.
• Because the NRHP form is 18 pages long, I moved the sourcing reference down to "Bibliography", and have used SFN references to point to specific pages. In particular, if you look at SFN reference by the heading of the table, you'll see the names and dates of their residency can be found on pp. 6-7. Hopefully, this will cut down on confusion as to why this is a list article - because the NRHP provided the list itself.
• There are numerous sites out there in support of military history, and I've checked them out as best I could for reliability. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• OK, will be back to this ASAP.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Resuming. Seems cleaned up. I haven't checked every ref, but done a sampling and they seem in order, with a few quibbles.

• You say "The combining of Fort Sam Houston, Randolph Air Force Base, Lackland Air Force Base and Martindale Army Airfield, to create Joint Base San Antonio, took place in 2010." but reference 5 says "In August 2009, the 502d ABW reactivated at JBSA-Fort Sam Houston to provide installation support to Joint Base San Antonio, which encompassed JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, -Lackland, -Randolph, -Camp Bullis and other DOD locations in and around San Antonio." That reads to me like Joint Base-San Antonio was in operation in 2009.

• Changed it to 2009. — Maile (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Reference 11 has limited/subscription access and should be noted as such. page

• I can't access it now myself. Swapped it out for ref NRHP page 4, says the same thing. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• As an aside, this and associated pages are a good reference on the career of officers who were West Point graduates.

• Cool site. Thanks.— Maile (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding Isaac D. White, our article on him says he was buried in Pine Hill Cemetery, Peterborough, New Hampshire. I don't have a good source on that though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Cannot confirm the burial except to say Find A Grave, which we aren't supposed to use, says both he and his wife are buried there. My perception is that this was a very private man, as there were very little San Antonio mentions of him in the various newspaper archives while he was commanding officer. I think he kept a low profile. — Maile (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Wehwalt: are you finished with this source review, or are you just taking a pause here? I know it can be a lot to wade through. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm done. Passes.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Delegates question

• @ChrisTheDude, PresN, Giants2008, and The Rambling Man: Curiosity - what happens if this stalls out here? Looks like TRM possibly doesn't feel I've adequately addressed all of his issues, probably on his question of why this should be a list, but my answers are within the style I've learned from a decade (or so) time period I've been working on NRHP lists-articles, and I've done a lot. So, while I'm in line with the American NRHP style regarding lists, he and I have to agree to disagree on that point. So, if this nomination never has any other feedback but what is here, is the nomination dead on arrival? — Maile (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

TRM never came back to this, but from looking through this I think it's fine as-is: without the NRHP registration, this is just some house, and the only reason it's on there is because of the list of notable people who lived in it, rather than because there's something particularly interesting about the architecture. I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 14:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, fine by me. I just haven't had the time/inclination to get back here so frequently. Glad to see it's been promoted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@PresN and The Rambling Man: don't one of you have to put the FLCClosed|promoted template on here for this to recognized by the bot? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed. --PresN 00:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [10].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Bulgaria

Nominator(s): Tone 17:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Bulgaria has 10 WH sites, they include old churches and ancient tombs. Standard style for WHS articles. Feedback appreciated :) Tone 17:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "It minted their own coins" - "it" is singular and "their" is plural
• "constructed in the 12-14 centuries" => "constructed between the 12th and 14th centuries"
• Think that's all I got this time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Tone 21:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from ~~~~

* "natural beauty, are" → Comma unnecessary. "As of 2021" → You could presumably update it to be 2022 or March, 2022. "been preserved full" → "been preserved in full" "100 metres (330 ft) tall cliff" → Should be "100 meter tall" "at the height of 23 metres" → "at a height of 23 metres" "Thracian city Seuthopolis" → "Thracian city of Seuthopolis" "century, the hermits" → "century, hermits" "1862, in the time of Bulgarian National Revival" → "1862, at the time of the Bulgarian National Revival" "temple of Apollo" → Link Apollo. "Middle Ages, a basilica" → "Middle Ages and a basilica" or "Middle Ages; a basilica" "colony of Dalmatian pelican" → "colony of Dalmatian pelicans" "Pirin Mountains" → Link the whole term instead of just the first word. "preserved, best in the world" → "preserved, the best in the world" "wall drawings, that" → "wall drawings that" "during the Middle Ages, Bulgarian" → "during the Middle Ages: Bulgarian" "a 85 kilometres (53 mi) stretch" → Should be "85 kilometre" That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC) @AryKun: Done, thanks! As for the metre/feet comments, these are parts of templates, I am not sure if there's a trick to change it. Tone 14:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as my concerns have been addressed. AryKun (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• "a 100 metres tall cliff" → "a 100 metre tall cliff" and "a 85 kilometres stretch" → "a 85 kilometre stretch" (appears AryKun noted this above – maybe it needs something with |adj=...?)
• Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe is actually listed as Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe
• "Classical antiquity" → "classical antiquity"

Overall, another great list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 Ha, "|abbr=on" fixes the issue and makes the text more compact, good to know this option exists. Fixed the rest as well, thanks for reviewing! Tone 19:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:43, 12 April 2022 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [11].

---

List of ochotonids

Nominator(s): PresN 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To no one's surprise, the train continues with another animal list! We continue our long journey through the mammals; we've finished the orders Carnivora (10 lists), aka "meat-eaters"; Artiodactyla (4 lists), aka "hooved animals that aren't like horses"; and Perissodactyla (1 list), aka "hooved animals that are like horses", and here we are in Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits", with the sister list to list of leporids, aka rabbits, which is also at FLC. Here we have the other half of Lagomorpha, the pika family, with list of ochotonids: they're not rodents, but actually tiny rabbit-cousins. Like so many of the lists already done, this is a unique one: all 34 species are in a single genus, so we don't get an interesting cladogram or really anything besides one big table. There are subgenera, but they're not universally used... because of the second odd thing: a good chunk of the family has recently been revamped. Research out of China in the last decade has determined that a lot of species should be split, generally on old subspecies lines, basically because the pika lives in high elevations so the population in every mountain range has diverged from each other. A few books have caught up to these splits, so we have data for the table, but in some cases we don't have articles, much less an IUCN rating or pretty pictures/range maps. Which is a shame, because it turns out pikas are adorable; it's not part of this list, but I don't mind telling you that most species build "haystacks" of plants to burrow next to for the winter, popping out occasionally for a snack, which is probably why that little guy is carrying a flower in his mouth in the lead picture instead of just eating it. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Suggest wikilinking forbs, as this is not a well-known word
• Also possibly legumes and sedge
• That's all I could find! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Whoops, knew I forgot something. Done! --PresN 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - fantastic work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• File:LagomysRufescens.jpg — "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."

• Done, published 1876, copyright holder died 1905

• File:Ochotona pusilla.tif — source link, how do we know if it is CC-by-attr-SA-4.0? And if it is "between 1700 and 1880", then would be better tags available.

• Agreed, given that the source was published in 1881–1883, "CC-anything" is clearly wrong. Switched to pd-old (and PD-US-expired).

That it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Done. --PresN 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Diet: ... bird brains": unexpected.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose and made-to-order table coding seem fine. 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 article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

AryKun

• Disclaimer: Haven't checked references, and will be claiming credit for this at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from ~~~~

* "an ochotonid, or colloquially" → Comma unnecessary. "shrubland, and rocky biomes" → Link scrubland and biome. "long Northern pika" → Northern should be uncapitalized. "many are not yet evaluated for conservation status" → "many have not yet had their conservation status evaluated" "single genus, Ochotona" → Ochotona should be italicized. Also, since you've said that Ochotona is the only genus in the family, which is already linked, is the duplink needed? "four subgenera" → Link subgenus. "Several extinct Ochotonidae species" → Looking at the page for pika, there seem to be more extinct species than living ones, so "Many species" would be a better wording. "species in 1 genus" → "species in one genus" In Korean pika, link lichen That's all I could find. AryKun (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• @AryKun: All done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. AryKun (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: reminder that since I wrote this list, one of you two has to evaluate it for promotion. --PresN 14:32, 12 April 2022 (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, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Hulk video games

Nominator(s): Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

In the world of video games, the Marvel Comics character Hulk has appeared in a couple handfuls of standalone titles and in several others within an ensemble. As far as covering those appearances goes, this list has reached the full current extent of that purpose; each and every relevant entry is included, all details are adequately and reliably sourced, and the information is laid out in two clean and navigable tables. Special thanks to Buidhe for his input and assurance that the list is now ready for this candidacy. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The {{Video game titles}} template has a `caption` parameter, so visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text in the template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Done. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "doppelgangers of She-Hulk as enemy characters.[39][13]" - refs are not in correct order
• If the FF game doesn't feature the Hulk, is it really a Hulk game?
• A handful of the bullet points are complete sentences, so need full stops
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: The Hulk does appear as a potential mini-boss between levels in FF, but I haven't found any solid secondary sources to back it up. Even that aside, I would think the inclusion of a major Hulk supporting character would be sufficient for an entry. Other than that, the other points have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

This article almost looks great, with a few comments:

• Image needs alt text.
• Plus, I think that file should have a border, with a caption stating that it is the logo of the '62 comic book; the logo isn't representative of the entire Hulk franchise.
• Remove the bold in "Hulk" per MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID.
• "in Marvel Comics' Marvel Universe." Isn't this kinda repetitive?
• "Several companies have developed entries in the franchise, including Adventure International, Probe Entertainment, Attention to Detail, Radical Entertainment, Edge of Reality, and Amaze Entertainment." Why does Radical Entertainment get two citations while others get one?
  • To cover both of Radical's games; each of the others only had one. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

But apart from that, sources look good, and the list is fine as usual. GeraldWL 18:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Taken care of. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Aight looks good now. Support. GeraldWL 20:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Couldn't the opening two sentences be combined to: The Hulk is a fictional Marvel Comics superhero who first appeared in the comic book series The Incredible Hulk in 1962? Something about the current format seems choppy to me.
• This is more of a clarification question, but was there a reason given for why this character did not appear in video games for a decade (.e. between 1984 and 1994)?
  • None that I've seen. I can only speculate that Marvel was still new to the video game scene and more popular properties like Spider-Man and X-Men were safer bets at the time. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    • That makes sense to me and thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• I have a comment for the last sentence of the lede. Four citations in a row seems like citation overkill to me. Is there a way to avoid this (i.e. citation bundling, etc.)?

Wonderful job with the list. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That oughta do it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• I think duplinking the game systems might be useful, but that's up to you.
• No other comments, so will support on the basis of prose. Look forward to seeing the GTC. AryKun (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed (though this may be the only video game article I've seen that italicizes game names in ref titles, which is something other projects do but which is uncommon in this area); promoting. --PresN 14:43, 12 April 2022 (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, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [13].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Anne Hathaway

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

My first FLC in more than four years. After writing her FA-class biography, I have worked extensively on Hathaway's awards list in the past few days. It is a well-sourced and well-written article IMHO. That said, I welcome constructive criticism on its improvement. FrB.TG (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (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. You're good there, except for one minor tweak: if the cell spans multiple rows, then use scope=rowgroup instead of scope=row.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 02:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: is "scope=rowgroup" a standard practice? I don't like one bit how the entries are then shown in bold. None of the award pages, featured or not, I know has this. FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, "plainrowheaders" should fix that, just like it does for scope=row; I guess leave it as row for now, I'll ask at WP:ACCESS about it. --PresN 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Okay, this should now be fixed, I've gotten plainrowheaders updated to affect rowgroups as well as rows. I've updated the list for you as a test, and it looks fine. --PresN 17:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Any title starting with "The" should sort based on the next word
• As the table is sortable, anything that is linked should be linked every time
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Chris. These should be sorted now. FrB.TG (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Pseud 14

I have very minor comments:

• Pipe first instance of Teen Choice Award
• Hathaway followed with roles -- perhaps rephrase, it does come across as clunky or reads awkwardly
• Maybe the image caption on the infobox could use some context? Instead of the usual "subject in year"

The image description says it was at an AHC campaign. And I for the life of me have no clue what that means. So I’ve only added that the picture was taken at a campaign.

Nothing more to add. Marvelous job on this piece. Glad to see this last bit of her related article on here. (FT in no time!) -- Pseud 14 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Pseud. These should be resolved now. And yes, I will definitely go for FTC if and when this is promoted. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- P.S. I just saw her bust out "Since U Been Gone" during a game on The Kelly Clarkson Show. Love her! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all

Comments by Brankestein

• I've been told that tables need captions. You can see MOS:DTAB for an example.

Other than that, I don't think there's anything more to add. The list looks pretty good and I'm happy to return the favor, even if it's something really minor. --Brankestein (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Brankestein, caption added. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support --Brankestein (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• For the image, I would clarify the campaign to avoid any ambiguity or confusion. I would also add ALT text for the image.
• For this part, with a role in Christopher Nolan's superhero film, why not specify that she played Catwoman? You could use a link to the Catwoman in other media article. I am only asking because the lead names Fantine for Les Misérables.
• I would include the Golden Raspberry Awards in the lead. It would balance the lead, and they are a notable award.
• Hathaway has received two nominations for playing the Grand High Witch in The Witches (including the Golden Raspberry Awards mentioned above) so I think that is worth including at the end of the lead.

Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. I think Hathaway is a very talented actress, but I have honestly not watched one of her films in a while. However, that is more so because I've fallen off of keeping up with films in general lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba, as always. All done. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Do watch some of her films in the future, although her recent works have been less than great. FrB.TG (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion. I remember that I tried watching The Hustle and The Last Thing He Wanted, but I couldn't get into either. That being said, I still pay attention to casting news about her future films. I might check out The Witches because her performance looks delightfully absurd, but I'm not crazy about the amount of CGI. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review and support by PanagiotisZois

Source review (formatting and reliability) by PanagiotisZois

I want to point out that this isn't a full-blown source review. My comments focus primarily on the formatting of the sources end ensuring that they're all structured the same way, that the websites/publishers are always linked (not linked in some sources but not others), and that information isn't missing. I also looked at the reliability of the sources basedon on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The majority of the references come from reliable sources, so no problems there. I've included comments about some which I think can be improved. Source 4: I'm not sure if Yahoo! News is all that of a high-quality, reliable source. Since the source is about her character in Les Miserables being a prostitute and ill, I'm sure there are better sources. Source 9: The Academy should be wikilinked. Sources 11-13: The Alliance should be wikilinked. Source 19, 20, 26, 30: Variety should be linked. Source 29: Is BroadwayWorld considered a reliable source? Source 33: HitFix should be linked. Source 35, 36: The HFPA should be linked. Source 37, 38: Websites should be linked. Source 40: Gotham Awards should be linked. Lol, Gotham Awards and she played Catwoman. Source 42-46: Variety and other sources should be linked. Source 46, 49: Link HitFix. Source 51: Link Variety. Source 52: Link the National Board of Review. Source 54: Link the LA Times. Sources 56-59: Link the websites / publishers. Source 61: Link the Online Film Critics Society. Source 62 is missing the website / publisher. Sources 67 and 68 should probably include the publisher. As this is the Emmys, I'm guessing that would be the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. Source 69: Link HitFix. Source 72, 80: Link the Hollywood Reporter. Source 74: Link the website. Source 78: Link SAG-AFTRA. Source 81: Is Awards Daily a reliable source? Source 82: Link HitFix. Source 87, 89: Link the LA Times. Source 88: Link HuffPost. Source 90: Link E!. Source 95: Link Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association.

For now, these are the comments I have to make. I'll try my best to also perform a source review regarding verifiability. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for these. I have decided to wiki-link sources publishers only on first instances. AFAIK, there are usually two standards: linking works on their first instances to avoid overlinking (especially in ones that are crowded with references)—this is usually my preference—or link them every time, although I have seen some not linking publishers at all. It makes me think there is no set rule for this. Otherwise, I have replaced the sources from Yahoo! and BroadwayWorld.

Regarding the 23rd point, Awards Daily's owner Sasha Stone is a noted blogger who was profiled by New York Magazine and is a member of Alliance of Women Film Journalists. It should be fine IMO. FrB.TG (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I necessarily like it, but it isn't really an issue with linking the websites in just the first references but not others. I'm glad to see you replaced some of the less-than reliable sources and added information in the ones that were missing it. But I see source #62 is still missing the website. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, ref. 62 does have a link. The ones that don’t are not available online, unfortunately. FrB.TG (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I added in the publisher in source 62. One last nitpick I have is this: source #42 is the only one to list Variety's publisher; Penske Media Corporation. For consistency, unless you want to add the publisher in every other Variety reference, I'd recommend removing it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Done, and thank you for the fix. I thought you were referring to the URL and not the missing publisher. FrB.TG (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I suck with Wikipedia terminology. Things are shaping up greatly. I'll try to post my remaining comments regarding verifiability soon. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review (verifiability) by PanagiotisZois

Sources 1 and 2 require subscriptions. I believe Wikipedia has icons for these types of situations. Source 7 does discuss Hathaway's role in Modern Love but not that she won an award. Maybe it would be more appropriate to have the sentence read as "That year, for the role of a woman with bipolar disorder in an episode of the anthology series Modern Love,[SOURCE] Hathaway earned...". Since sources 12 and 13 are the same, wouldn't it be better to either combine the two columns and use only one source, or have just one source be repeated using "ref=name"? I might be hallucinating, but from sources 19 and 20, it doesn't seem like Rachel Getting Married won a Critics' Choice Award for Best Cast. Source 27 is apparently dead. Change the url to "=dead". HitFix sources like 32, 33, 46, 49, 69, 82 are also dead. Source 49 doesn't state that Anne Hathawaye was nominated for Best Hero for Les Miserables. It was for The Dark Knight Rises, which the source in question doesn't state. Source 51 is apparently dead. Source 55 only references Hathaway's role in Les Miserables. Source 62 doesn't bring up any Desert Palm Achievement Award that Hathaway won. Source 63 should be viewed as dead, as the page doesn't exist anymore. Same with source 64. Source 65 doesn't state that Hathaway was nominated for The Intern. Source 67 is dead. Source 71 only states that Hathaway was nominated, not that she won. Source 74 doesn't seem to state that Hathaway was nominated for Les Miserables alongside The Dark Knight Rises, for which she won. Source 77 is dead. Thank you for a rather exhaustive review, much obliged. To avoid messing up the numberization of your points, I am replying here to the points that require clarification. The ones I haven't responded have been done as suggested. 3. They are not the same source, one is for the winners, the other for nominees. You're right. My bad. :| 4. They didn't and the list isn't claiming to either. It only says they were nominated. 12. Unfortunately, that is the only source I found for this but given that she only had The Intern released in 2015, I think it's okay this time. 15. There's a different source for her nomination in Les. FrB.TG (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Source 75 only discusses the leading acting categories, not supporting ones. I believe that's my final nitpick with the sources. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Replaced now. FrB.TG (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The last thing I have to say is this. I noticed that you changed all references to having their "|url-status" to be "dead", despite most of the sources still being active. I don't believe Wikipedia has a consesnus on this, but Wikipedia:Link rot seems to indicate that it's preferable for active sources to be listed as "alive". Having said that, I don't really view that as an "issue" with the page. They're all properly formatted, the majority come from pretty high-quality, reliable sources (granted, MTV News may not be BBC News, but it's appropriate), and are varifiable. I apologize for some of the mistakes I made during the review process, and am happy to pass the source review. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Now, moving on to the prose review:

1. I'd recommend clarifying that Hathaway's role in Get Real was a leading one.
2. Similarly to The Princess Diaries, include the year of release for The Dark Knight Rises.
   1. Same with Les Miserables.
3. I think there's something wrong with the Best Hero award for The Dark Knight Rises.

1 and 2 done but I don't understand your third point. What exactly is wrong there? Do you Hathaway unsuitable for the nomination in the category (as in Catwoman shouldn't considered a hero in TDKR) or is there something wrong in the article? FrB.TG (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the information provided in that section goes in this order; first the Best Hero award, then The Dark Knight Rises. The two categories of "Recipient(s)" and "Category" have been mixed up. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, and thank you for the fix. I do apologize for these little mix-ups. FrB.TG (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Lol, no worries. Besides, it doesn't hurt to help out and make a few edits here and there during a FAC or FLC. Regardless, given its current state, I gladly give my support to this page for promotion to featured list status. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: Sorry for the ping but could I get a status update on this, if possible? Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 14:43, 12 April 2022 (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, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [14].

---

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Outstanding Drama Series is one of the categories present at the GLAAD Media Awards, which honor various forms of media for their excellence in depicting the LGBT community. As one can understand, this category focuses on dramatic television series. The page has existed since 2017, but the lede consisted of just one sentence, and no references were present. In fact, despite the nominees for 2022 having been announced back in January, nobody had added them in for over a month. I based the structure of the lede from the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book page, which was promoted back in 2018.

The references consist of a mixture of primary and secondary sources, as I believe the latter help showcase that this award is of importance to various independent organizations and corporations. Also, just in case this issue might be raised in the future: while this award and some others at the GLAAD Media Awards have always been competitive categories with various nominees, GLAAD never announced the nominees until 1996. Up until that point, the nominees were only discussed internally, with only the winners being announced in press released, and the awards being given at the ceremonies. It was later that GLAAD started announced the nominees in press releases first, with the winners not being revealed until the actual ceremony; like the Oscars. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
  • Added in the period.
• Also, that caption probably needs a source
  • Added in sources for both instances that Cruz accepted the award.
• Anything that starts with "The" should sort based on the next word
  • @ChrisTheDude: I've done that with all of the shows. I have two questions; firstly, is the method I've used appropriate, or is there a better way of doing it? Secondly, should I also do that with all of the networks as well? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, the method you have used is spot-on, and yes I would say the same needs to be done for networks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Done. I also did it to the "Multiple wins and nominations" section, although that might be a bit unnecessary since the tables aren't sortable. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. Right now, you're using the caption as the key for the table, which doesn't work- move the key out above the table and replace it with a valid caption.
• 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. You have them, they just need a small tweak for some of them: if the cell spans multiple rows, then use scope=rowgroup instead of scope=row.
• I get what you're going for with the split ref columns, but only because I read the footnote- without it, it's confusing, and with it it's still visually confusing and weird for screen reader software. The referencing isn't so complicated that you can't just have two refs in one cell.
• It's not an accessibility problem, but the purple/green combo is really visually jarring. Consider using a less clashing combo, or dropping the purple altogether.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @PresN: All right. I'll admit, I initially didn't understand most of the things and terminology you were using. But I did look into MOS:DTAB, and I believe I've correctly followed through with your instructions. I also changed the colour for the "Award year" column so that it's less jarring against the green. I took some inspiration from the Oscar for Best Actress page. Regarding your second point, is changing the "row" to "rowgroup" the only change I needed to make in the code, or are there others as well? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You're good now; I made a minor tweak (you only need row 'group' if it's a group of rows), but that's all. Thanks! --PresN 15:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you for taking the time to do that. At least now, I know how to more forward with both this and other GLAAD-related or similar articles I work on. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

This is a pretty solid FLC, though I have some comments to help polish it up. GeraldWL 16:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• "is an annual award that honors dramatic series"-- ehh I don't think anyone calls it "dramatic series", just "drama series". Dramatic is subjective; drama is objective.
  • But the characters are just so melodramatic, lol. Fixed it.
• Infobox also needs LGBT parantheses like the lead.
  • Done.
• Images require alt text.
  • I added alt text. Although, I have to admit, I've always sucked at them as I'm not sure what to write.
    • Lmao don't worry, I often suck at writing them too especially for portraits. I copyedited yours for clarity.
• In the infobox, United States shouldn't be linked. Also if you state "United States" in full there, you must state it in full too in the lead.
  • Decided to change it to "American organization".
• "New York" City
  • Specified it's the city, not the state.
• "of the GLAAD Media Awards" --> "of the annual GLAAD Media Awards"
  • Done.
• While definitive articles cannot always be avoided, in paragraph 2's case (where there's three-at-once sentences starting with "The award") this is avoidable. In the second and third sentence, "The award" can be changed to "It".
  • Removed two of them.
• "The award was given to the ABC series HeartBeat and NBC series L.A. Law"-- must be made clear that this is this the first titles to win the award. I also think paragraph 2 as a whole can be moved as paragraph 3.
  • Made it more clear the ties was also the first time the award was given. Also, I merged the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs into one. I'm assuming that's what you meant, right?
    • Yep! :)
• "GLAAD can still nominate a mainstream work even if it was not submitted for consideration." Isn't this already covered at "GLAAD monitors mainstream media to identify which drama series will be nominated"?
  • Removed the latter part.
• "Shareholders Circle members"-- maybe add a footnote on the Shareholder Circle?
  • Looked into it and added a note explaining what the Shareholders Circle is.
• "as well as volunteers and allies." Allies as in, heterosexual people who supports LGBT? If so it must be linked.
  • I looked, and by "allies" they're referring to allies of the organization. To use one example GLAAD points out; a person who is a Special Honoree is not a member of GLAAD, but will be viewed as an ally and can vote. However, they don't exactly specify which criteria can make someone an ally. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I think you can paraphrase it to "Supporters". We don't need to use the organization's term all the time, and especially for an LGBT article this can be confusing.
      • @Gerald Waldo Luis: Would it be better to use something like "affiliated individuals"? I think supporters just makes it sound as if any one random person that supports the organization can vote. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Sounds good :D GeraldWL 14:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
          • @Gerald Waldo Luis: Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• The last paragraph can be easily combined with the previous paragraph.
  • Done

• (1990s) For the 1990 and 1991, it uses the same citation, ref 5, so it can be merged.
  • Done.
• The first example for this is in the 2000 part. There's duplicate links to the WB in one year; I think this is excessive and duplicates within a year row should be removed.
  • Removed duplicate links within a given year's ceremony.

@Gerald Waldo Luis: All right. I hope followed your instructions correctly. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - sorry for the long wait! It drowned way below my watchlist until Aoba commented. GeraldWL 15:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• I have made some copyedits here to avoid repetitive prose and ensure a better flow. Let me know if I messed up something.
  • I don't see anything wrong with it. Thank you. :)
• "Wilson Cruz (pictured) accepted the award during the 2021 ceremony for Star Trek: Discovery,[1] having previously accepted" - can we find a way to avoid repeating "accept" in such a close proximity?
  • Made changes to second sentence. Let me know if it's appropriate or if you'd like for me to change that.
• "The Shareholders Circle consists of donors who have made a donation of $1,500 or more." Same as above (this time with donor/donation). FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @FrB.TG: Changed the word "donors" to "individuals". I'm not sure if that's a problem since the following sentence (outside of the note) also uses that word. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - good work. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate some feedback on my FLC but to state the obvious, it is in no way mandatory.

Support from Aoba47

• For the Wilson Cruz image, I would include when the photo was taken in the caption.
• Was there an official reason for the award not being given in 1992?
• For this part, producers, writers, and / or actors, I do not think the spaces around the backslash are necessary.

Everything else looks good to me. Great work with this FLC. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

To elaborate Aoba's point 1, typically in a caption extend the (pictured) parantheses to (pictured YEAR). GeraldWL 15:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The clarification was useful, thank you. @Aoba47: I added in the year and shortened the "and/or" part. As for why there was no award given in 1992... I honestly have no idea. GLAAD never released a statement, and given the time period, the GLAAD Media Awards weren't all that well-known and there isn't much information available, as is. I'm guessing GLAAD just didn't deem any drama series during that year as being worthy of nomination in this category, so they just omitted it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything! I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Version reviewed

• For magazines like Playbill and Variety (magazine), etc., and maybe even newspapers like The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, etc., suggesting to add ISSN numbers. It is not a definite requirement, but advisable to add. You can easily find ISSN number in the infobox of respective Wikipedia pages of publications. Can also find at https://www.worldcat.org/.
  • Like 2165-1736 for Los Angeles Times?
    • Yeah. Either that one (web version), or 0458-3035 (print version) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
      • All right, I'll try and do that as quickly as possible.
        • Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ref#5, #15, #37, #39 requires an en-dash (–) in place of hyphen. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.
• I am assuming that the second and last para of lead is a summary of the table, that is why no citations. Right?
  • Yes. :) All the information in those two sections is taken from the tables.
• Other concerns:
  • I see blank white space between the infobox and the table of content, due to {{Clear}}
    • Removed. Although the downside is that if the "Contents" box is closed, it sandwhiches the 1990s section.
  • In this/these sortable table(s), each thing which deserves a link should be linked every time. For instance, ABC should be linked in all the instances in the table 2010s, etc.
    • Initially, that was the case but @Gerald Waldo Luis: suggested it'd be better if within a given year / ceremony, I only link a network that appears twice or more only the first time.
  • "1997 (8th)" and "1998 (9th)" rows do not have citations in numeric order ([12] should be before [13]). Check rest as well. Again, not a definite requirement, but advisable to do.
    • Yeah, I understand what you mean. The thing is, with every table, I've always put first the references that deal within a given ceremony's nominees and then the references about the winners. For this reason, would it be appropriate to leave them as is?
      • Yeah, fine! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Passes the source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 14:43, 12 April 2022 (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, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [15].

---

Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music Video

Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the Mnet Asian Music Awards is commonly known as the biggest K-pop awards show in the industry. The Best Music Video category, in particular, was perhaps the most prestigious award in the event from its inauguration ceremony from 1999–2005. Since then, it has been demoted to one of the regular awards; however, it still holds important value in the event's history as it was formerly an event that aimed to honor the development of music videos in a time where the modern music industry in South Korea was still developing. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "and was retitled as "Best Music Video"" => "and it was retitled as "Best Music Video""
• "the most wins in the category—having won for four consecutive years" => "the most wins in the category, having won for four consecutive years"
• Lee Seung-hwan, 2PM, Blackpink, and BTS image captions are all full sentences so need full stops
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: All fixed, thanks! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:44, 27 November 2021 (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.
• Avoid having column headers in the middle of the table, like you have for "Music Video of the Year (daesang)" and "Best Music Video". Screen reader software won't treat it the say you're intending visual readers to treat it - like an exception line in the middle of a table - but instead as a stretch out first column cell (so, "year: Music Video of the Year (daesang)"). They also prevent you from having the table be sortable. See MOS:COLHEAD for more details.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 00:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

ALT text looks good! All images are appropriately licenced. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

Looks like a decent article! Will support after all comments resolved.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

* I am not an expert in Korean articles, but does this article also need a Hepburn translation? "a music video centered"-- hyphenate video and centered Award categories shouldn't be in quotations "At the inaugural ceremony in 1999"-- can be shortened to "In 1999", as readers already know 1999's the inaugural ceremony. In the infobox: "Quality short form music videos"-- link music videos "Music Video of the Year (daesang)"-- italicize daesang "From 1999–2005"-- for 2005, link 2005 Mnet Km Music Video Festival "2000–03"-- for 03, link 2003 Mnet Music Video Festival "2004–05"-- for 2004, link 2004 Mnet Km Music Video Festival "Starting in 2006"-- for 2006, link 2006 Mnet Km Music Festival "2006–08"-- for 08, link 2008 Mnet Km Music Festival "2009"-- link 2009 Mnet Asian Music Awards Now onto the image captions. "2009 and 2010 recipients"-- for 2010, link 2010 Mnet Asian Music Awards If the videos that won were mentioned (like in img1 and 2), then the rest (imgs 2, 5, 7) must follow the same style. Last image is an exception considering the large scope. "2012"-- link 2012 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2011"-- link 2011 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2015"-- link 2015 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2016"-- link 2016 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2017-21"-- link 2017 Mnet Asian Music Awards and 2021 Mnet Asian Music Awards Table looks good to me. Now the sources. NPR should be in publisher not website parameter YouTube must be linked for consistency

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Support with all comms resolved. Great work! Btw if you are interested, I have an open FLC which is also in need of a source review. GeraldWL 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• "by CJ E&M Pictures (Mnet) at the" perhaps I'm the only one confused by this, the first link is a redirect, the second link is to a TV channel. What does all this mean?

Mnet is owned by CJ E&M.

• It says "in 1999 as the Mnet Music Video Festival" but the link title is "1999 Mnet Video Music Awards"? It does say "The award-giving body began in this year under the name "Mnet Km Music Festival" (MKMF).[2]" but that's still different from what is written here. Which is correct?

Fixed

• "the MTV Video Music Awards.[3] From" no need to pipe to the singular which then only redirects back to the plural.
• "went through an" -> "underwent an"
• "In 1999, the prize was first presented" Perhaps "The inaugural Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music Video was presented..." to reiterate the subject again.
• "between 2017–21" would prefer prose, i.e. between 2017 and 2021.
• "Three artists share the title for second-most wins" there's no such "title". You mean "Three artists have won the award twice..."
• "as the lead artist" what does that add?
• "From 1999–2005, the category" can relink 1999 first time in the main body of the article.
• "2000–03" 2000–2003 per MOS.
• "2004–05" so "2004–2005" to be consistent.
• "the winner was instead announced live at the ceremony." well one assumes that whether there were nominations or not, the winner is still' announced live, I think what you mean is that there was no list of nominees unveiled, just the winner announced at the early ceremonies.
• "2004 recipient for..." etc. Try to avoid starting sentences (or even fragments) with numbers. Reword it, e.g. "blah was a recipient ... in 2004" etc.
• "No list of nominees was made available for the former daesang during the course..." also looks like this was the case from 2019 onwards as well...?

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:  Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Since then, four artists have received the accolade more than once; among them, BTS holds the distinction for the most wins in the category, winning for five consecutive years between 2017 and 2021. Three artists have won the award twice: Big Bang, Psy and 2NE1.": I'm not sure what this is saying. If Big Bang, Psy and 2NE1 have won twice and BTS has won five times, then it would be better to say that, and leave out "four artists have received".
• At least one of the redirects is a double-redirect: Big Mama -> Big Mama (band) -> Big Mama (group). Please check the links in the sortable columns of the two tables.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. I'm going to skip the sourcing part of this review, since these things have been covered above, and it's an area I'm weak in.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. An image review has already been done, above.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 00:14, 8 April 2022 (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, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [16].

---

List of Washington ballot measures

Nominator(s): ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on it for a while and, after implementing some feedback from Reywas92 (talk · contribs) and SounderBruce (talk · contribs), I think it's ready for some more eyes on it. The list collects every ballot measure since Washington joined the union, everything is sourced directly to the results or to reliable secondary sources, and the previous formatting and inline citation issues with the list have been resolved. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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. !Measure Name becomes !scope=col | Measure Name.
• 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. |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16 becomes !scope=row |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Done - That was clear, thank you! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 20:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Checking back in - Any other issues of note? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

;Drive-by comments No article should start with "This is a list...." Find a way to write a more engaging opening sentence Done - Does that look any better? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Definitely better :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC) I personally think that, rather than having lots and lots of tables, some of which are tiny, it would look better if they were all merged into one table, with the year as a column I remember considering this when I started, but I was concerned that with a very long table, readability/navigation might be impacted. I may wait to see if others have input there before making a bigger change like that. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC) With just one or two exceptions, the descriptions are not full sentences so should not have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Done (I think, although it's been a while since I've had a formal English class) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• There are no images in this list-article (except the sidebar image). Is there nothing more relevant image to add? I found File:Seattle - Transportation ballot measure campaign literature, 1937.jpg. Will that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It could, but that's a local proposition and not a larger ballot measure. I'll look around, and, if need be, can probably upload something. I could add more generic images next to the more historic ballot measures, maybe? Photo of a women's suffrage rally next to the initiative that granted them the right to vote? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 08:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The image (File:Washington Equal Suffrage Association put up posters in Seattle in 1910.jpg) looks great! Thats fine, pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Kavyansh (and thanks for tweaking the image settings, I'm not used to all the options there). What do you think about this image, of people celebrating after Ref 74 passed? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 09:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Licence wise, its good. No issues if you add it, as long as it doesn't clutter any table. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

;Further comments Washington is linked on the second mention rather than the first. I'd also be tempted to put "The US state of Washington" to avoid confusion with Washington DC Done - I had linked on the second because I thought it would look weird to have the first word be a wikilink, but with the phrasing change it looks much more natural. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "gather an number of signatures" => "gather a number of signatures" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "equal or greater to 8%" => "equal to or greater than 8%" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "approved by a majority of the people next general election" - think there are some words missing here Changed to "approved by a majority of voters in the next general election." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "initiatives and referendum have become" => "initiatives and referendums have become" Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "17 of his initiatives have made it" - any way to avoid starting a sentence with digits? Changed to "He has had 17 initiatives be placed on the ballot as of 2021." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "An amendment legalizing and defining the state's power to use eminent domain" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "eminent domain"? I for one have absolutely no idea wat it is...... Wikilinked (it's the right of the government to seize private property, usually to make room for highways and the like). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "requiring employers offer additional pay" => "requiring that employers offer additional pay" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "An amendment requiring all voters be taxpayers" => "An amendment requiring that all voters be taxpayers" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "creating distinct areas for trolling" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "trolling", as in this context I presume it doesn't mean being rude to people on the internet :-) Wikilinked (should've caught that earlier, it's a very boring method of fishing) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "A measure requiring unions provide employers" => "A measure requiring that unions provide employers" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) That's what I got as far as 1948, I will look at the rest later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Thanks Chris! I know this one gets pretty boring with how mundane so many of these measures are :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) More comments "A measure to ban television advertising of alcoholic beverages between 8 AM and 10 PM" - isn't it more normal to write 8:00am? Fixed - I'd always written time that way but I checked MOS and you're right. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "specific stretches of the Columbia River if it would interefere" - typo on last word Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "allowing them to sell spirituous liquor" - is "spirituous" a word? Changed (it is a word but it's synonymous with "alcoholic") ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "An amendment replacing the 40 mill property tax limit" - what does "40 mill" mean? $40 million? Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "This measure was one of two options - The other option exempted some hazardous waste from taxation" - don't think "the" should be capitalised there as it's all one sentence (this one also does need a full stop at the end). Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) That's what I got as far as 1999 :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh

A fascinating list which has clearly taken a lot of effort. Few comments below:

• The US state of Washington — Can link U.S. state
• This section also required that details of the amendment should be published in newspapers across the state before election day. — uncited?
• 8% of the votes in the lead v. at least eight percent of the voting population (emphasis mine)
• Link Oregon
• In the time since this amendment's passage, initiatives and referendums have become a prominent piece of Washington's electoral landscape. — uncited?
• In 1910 the people → "In 1910, people"
• making it the fifth state → "making Washington the fifth state"
• Of those, only two have not since been overturned by the courts. — that means rest all are overturned?
• Initiatives to the People are placed — why is P capitalized? Is "Initiatives to the People" a formal term. Same goes with "Initiatives to the Legislature"
• They require a two-thirds vote in the state legislature before being placed on the ballot. — uncited?
• 193,,686 — typo?
• 180179 — no comma?
• 574, 856 —Initiative to the People 49 extra space?
• office of Governor — MOS:JOBTITLE says G shouldn't be capitalized. Check for all other instances.
• $40,000,000 — will Template:Inflation be useful here?
• in Grant, Adams, Chelan, and Douglas counties — do we have links for these counties
• Side note: Initiative to the People 49 did not pass!
• Production — why is P capitalized?
• In these sortable tables, every thing which deserves a link should be linked every single time. WP:OL doesn't apply.
• mounts to $1000 — missing a comma
• Department of Social Security — do we have a link?
• between 8:00am and 10 pm — why '8:00' but not '10:00'? Why no space between '8:00' and am? Also, add a non-breaking space
• Daylight Savings Time — why capitalised?
• What is the difference between "Initiative to the People 193" and "Initiative to the People 210"
• More to come

Thanks for all this! I'm making notes of a lot of these things so that I don't run into them again in future articles. I fixed most of these, with a couple notes. With Tim Eyman, yes, his others have all been overturned or partially overturned by the courts. I switched the phrasing there to "overturned or modified," which should be clearer. As far as "Initiatives to the People" and "Legislature" goes, I couldn't find any formal guidance, but they are capitalized everywhere I could find on the state elections website. There might be some minor phrasing differences between 193 and 210, but if there were they weren't significant enough to change the description on the ballot - oftentimes the same measure appears in several different elections before passing or being abandoned. On the inflation template, I added that to measures that talk about taxation and budget allocations, not the very small amounts relating to people's pensions and salaries - let me know if you want me to add it there too! And I remember chuckling about Initiative to the People 49 for a while when I added that section! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Continuing:

• I'd link Native Americans

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• the Supreme Court — mention that it is Washington's supreme court, not SCOTUS.

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• equivalent to $83,444,206 in 2020 — can we round this off to nearest 1000, same goes with other equivalent templates.

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• replacing the $40 mill property tax — mill here is Mill or Million?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• 2,000 acres — can we use template:convert?

Fixed - I used km2 for the conversion, I'm not sure what the metric standard would be besides that. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• thirty to fifty-five years v. 21 to 19 — consistency needed

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• delegated to the Federal Reserve in the United States Supreme Court — 'United States Supreme Court' is mentioned, but 'Supreme Court' is linked to Washington Supreme Court

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• adding term limits for governor, Lieutenant governor, State Legislature — why capiytalized?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• 911 system can be linked to 9-1-1

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• and the hunting — do we really need a link to hunting?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide — do we have a link?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• within 25 feet — convert to meter as-well

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• that contain GMOs to be — why not write the full form at the first instance

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add a short description to the page.

Added, although I think the page title is descriptive enough, hence why I had it set to "none" ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to set it back to "none". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support — Clearly an excellent list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Even more comments from ChrisTheDude

• "A measure requiring long-term care works receive background checks" - presumably that should be workers rather than works?
• Wikilink GMOs?
• "A measure authorizing courts to remove individual's access to firearms" => "A measure authorizing courts to remove individuals' access to firearms"
• Notes B and F should not have full stops
• Think that's me finally done :-) I'll wait and see what other people think about merging the little tables into larger ones, either by decade/era or overall...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, Chris - Fixed those issues :) ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 11:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - apologies for taking so long to check back in...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92

• Should include that initiatives to people have six months to collect signatures but to the legislature has ~ten. And referendums just ~three months after the legislative session.
• Referendums require 4% signatures not 8 like the others (per Senate Joint Resolution 4)
• Perhaps there can be some info about campaign finance and the need for paid signature gatherers.
• "placed on the ballot by the legislature in order to gauge public interest" implies that it's nonbinding, but it would in fact adopt into law
• I don't think the Ref 74 photo is very illustrative of the topic, the focus is on the street sign and you just see people sitting.
• A second instance of daylight saving time should be fixed.
• Template:Elections in Washington (state) sidebar/Category:Washington (state) ballot measures links a handful of measures that have articles; these should all be linked in the relevant tables.
• I-776 and 747 were also overturned by the supreme court. Might be others as well.
• House Joint Resolution 6: capitalize Supreme Court, link to Washington Supreme Court
• Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 8210: specify that chief justice would be elected by members of the court not the public as I'd interpret that. It also allowed for reduction of the court's size but didn't require it.

Thanks again for your improvements to this unique list! Reywas92^Talk 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Reywas92 - I believe I've fixed everything except the Ref 74 photo as I personally think the photo fits, but if anybody else has an issue with it I'll remove it. I added a paragraph talking about paid signature gathering but I'm not sure if there's anything unique to ballot measures to discuss for general campaign finance, other than the general criticisms that get applied to every electoral process. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I think something like this would be more illustrative than a street sign. Otherwise support and any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

I'll try to take a look – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, 162 out of 189 sources are from "Office of the Secretary of State". I know that sourcing requirement for FLC is not that strong; we accept Billboard for Billboard lists, IUNC for species lists, etc., so this is not a major issue. But I just want to know your approach as for finding sources.
• In which cases is "Office of the Secretary of State" italicized? In which cases is it not?
• What makes HistoryLink a WP:RS? The particular piece used ([17]) has been authored by David Wilma and Kit Oldham. Are they both subject matter expert; they don't have Wikipedia articles, I guess.
  • I'm really confused why HistoryLink is being questioned, it's a well established and respected resource with comprehensive historical coverage of the state. Both authors are published historians (one being an editor) and this page even has nine sources itself! Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I did not say that it is not reliable. I asked if the authors are "subject matter expert". As you say, if they are, I'm fine with using it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Regardless, there is inconsistency in HistoryLink v. www.historylink.org v. History Link. Also, Ref#2 and #5 are same, should be merged.
• "in American English" — why is this important to mention?
• "June 8, 2018" v. "2012-12-06" — inconsistency in date style, this is just an example; there are various instances like thing throughout the article. You'l need to decide and be consistent whether to use "YYYY-MM-DD" or "Month DD, YYYY"
• Ref#11: "Washington Secretary of State Blog" — what makes this different from a normal blog? Blogs are not WP:RS
  • That blanket statement is wrong. Blogs are just not necessarily RS when self-published by an unreliable author. Of course the Secretary of State is a reliable source when publishing things on its own website about things the Office oversees, and its presentation format is irrelevant. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:BLOGS states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. It being published by SOS satisfies that it "reliable" publication, but that does not necessarily make it RS. Do we know who the author(s) is/are, and are they "subject-matter expert" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

      It literally says the author is "Secretary Of State's Office" so yes I would expect whichever employee wrote this on behalf of and with oversight of the office is an expert at their own job and what the office does, just as any other content (likewise unsigned) on the site would be reliable. I do not think that name should even redirect to this section because nowadays many organizations and public agencies use the blog post format to publish information, but they are not self-published sources in the sense of an individual publishing it alone like a blogspot page. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ref#12: "www.spokesman.com" — this should be The Spokesman-Review
• There is inconsistency in linking of media outlets/websites — Oregon Public Broadcasting is linked. Reuters is not. Suggesting to be consistent
• Ref#17: "Crosscut.com" — what makes it a WP:RS?
  • Huh? Why wouldn't it be??? Crosscut.com is the premier nonprofit news site in Washington, affiliated with the local PBS affiliate, with many highly respected reporters and editors. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response. I asked "what makes it a WP:RS?", and am satisfied with your rationale. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ref#18: Washington Policy Center — This is a blog. Introduction of our article on Washington Policy Center says "The Washington Policy Center (WPC) is a conservative think tank based in the state of Washington. The organization's stated mission is 'to promote sound public policy based on free-market solutions.'" I am not confident if it is neutral or reliable source; even keeping aside that the particular piece used in a blog.
  • Just because a blog is a format that any random person can publish on a variety of websites doesn't mean that the concept of organizations posting pieces as a web log is suspect. The WPC clearly takes responsibility for the articles its employees write in this part of the site. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:BLOGS states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Can we verify if the author, Mariya Frost, is an "established subject-matter expert". Are there better sources available which can be used in place of this? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • This isn't self-published by Frost, it's published by the WRC. This section doesn't apply to the concept of blogs in general even if that's the shortcut name: Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert doesn't apply here. They do think she's enough of an expert to be their transportation director, but yes their ideological bent makes them suboptimal though, even as this is an anodyne statement to source. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Yeah; I'll still say if a better source is available, better use it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Various citations with titles like "Initiative and Referenda Handbook - 2021", "Elections Search Results - November 1908 General", "Elections Search Results - November 1993 General", etc., etc. — They need en-dash (–) in place of a normal hyphen.
• Ref#129: "176 Wn.2d 808, LEAGUE OF EDUC. VOTERS V. STATE" — change to sentence case, and why is that source reliable? Same with Ref#162, #169
  • It's an opinion of the Washington State Supreme Court, why wouldn't it be reliable? Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh, didn't clearly noticed that. I am not questioning the opinion of Washington State Supreme Court, was a bit confused by seeing "MRSC" as website. It should be written as Municipal Research and Services Center, the way our Wikipedia article writes it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats mostly it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Reywas92, few responses above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite honestly, Reywas, we are selecting featured lists, which "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". I agree that our criteria about sources is not that strong, but I think if there are better sources available, one should prefer them. And as the source reviewer in this case, I think I should ask about it. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Logging that I have seen this, but am busy this weekend with a Wikimedia UK training event and an assessment deadline that I've been putting off. I will try and reply to everything by Tuesday. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

* Okay, 162 out of 189 sources are from "Office of the Secretary of State". I know that sourcing requirement for FLC is not that strong; we accept Billboard for Billboard lists, IUNC for species lists, etc., so this is not a major issue. But I just want to know your approach as for finding sources

I mean, this is just where the results are published. For something like election results I would much rather cite the actual results than a news article about them (and for ballot measures it's rare for them all to be reported on at the same time anyway), so this just streamlines the process a lot. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

*In which cases is "Office of the Secretary of State" italicized? In which cases is it not?

The cite web automatically italicizes it as the name of the website. It doesn't italicize it when it's listed as a publisher in the cite book template. Presumably it is getting the proper format. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* What makes HistoryLink a WP:RS?

It's staffed and written by professional historians in Washington State and is chaired by a range of education, history, and museum professionals. Both Wilma and Oldham have published several books on Washington State history. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

*Regardless, there is inconsistency in HistoryLink v. www.historylink.org v. History Link. Also, Ref#2 and #5 are same, should be merged.

Fixed - Thanks for pointing that out. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* "in American English" — why is this important to mention?

I don't see where this is? I searched the page for those words and could not find that appearing anywhere. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* "June 8, 2018" v. "2012-12-06" — inconsistency in date style, this is just an example; there are various instances like thing throughout the article. You'l need to decide and be consistent whether to use "YYYY-MM-DD" or "Month DD, YYYY"

This was a byproduct of only working on this page intermittently for a couple of years. They should all be fixed now (I opted for "Month DD, YYYY"). ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks better now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#11: "Washington Secretary of State Blog" — what makes this different from a normal blog? Blogs are not WP:RS

Deferring to Reywas92 (talk · contribs) here - It's an official publication of the Secretary of State's office, not some rando. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#12: "www.spokesman.com" — this should be The Spokesman-Review

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* There is inconsistency in linking of media outlets/websites — Oregon Public Broadcasting is linked. Reuters is not. Suggesting to be consistent

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#17: "Crosscut.com" — what makes it a WP:RS?

Again deferring to Reywas92 (talk · contribs), it's an established news agency that meets WP:NEWSORG ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#18: Washington Policy Center — This is a blog. Introduction of our article on Washington Policy Center says "The Washington Policy Center (WPC) is a conservative think tank based in the state of Washington. The organization's stated mission is 'to promote sound public policy based on free-market solutions.'" I am not confident if it is neutral or reliable source; even keeping aside that the particular piece used in a blog.

Looking at Reywas92 (talk · contribs) again, the format is sort of irrelevant because it's not random people, it's an official publication of an established think tank. WPC is as biased as any think tank, but I don't see any indication that they're not reliable. They're not being used to make a contentious statement, just a statement of fact (that Eyman's initiatives have mostly been overturned). ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Various citations with titles like "Initiative and Referenda Handbook - 2021", "Elections Search Results - November 1908 General", "Elections Search Results - November 1993 General", etc., etc. — They need en-dash (–) in place of a normal hyphen.

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#129: "176 Wn.2d 808, LEAGUE OF EDUC. VOTERS V. STATE" — change to sentence case, and why is that source reliable? Same with Ref#162, #169

'Fixed sentence case ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And I think that's everything! Let me know if I missed something, @Kavyansh.Singh: ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking good! As a great Wikipedian once said: "In a few cases, had I been the author I may have done things differently, but so what? The article is a product of much research, gives a comprehensive account [...] and, in my view, is fully deserving of promotion." Passing the source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• I think a single para lead is a little lightweight for this major piece of work.
• Description columns no point in being sortable, it's free text so sorting is meaningless.
• Check your inflation work, I'm seeing "$300 property tax exemption (equivalent to $0 in 2020)"
• "Yes Votes" etc, no need for capital V here, this isn't German.
• Same for "Measure Name".
• " $1,033,000,000 in" probably $1 billion would do here.
• "World War One $15 a month" World War I, and you've previously inflated these monetary values. There needs to be a consistent approach to inflating these values, I see many which aren't...
• What's "poll tax"?

Just a quick pass over. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man Logging that I’ve seen this but don’t have access to a computer to do any editing for at least another week, potentially more. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 15:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Actually, I can't sleep and commandeered one of my uni's laptops to do this while mine is getting repaired.

I think a single para lead is a little lightweight for this major piece of work.

I added an additional paragraph but I don't think it's that great - any advice there would be appreciated. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Description columns no point in being sortable, it's free text so sorting is meaningless.

Fixed this, they are no longer sortable. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Check your inflation work, I'm seeing "$300 property tax exemption (equivalent to $0 in 2020)"

Fixed this as well - That's what I get for relying on the find-and-replace feature! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Yes Votes" etc, no need for capital V here, this isn't German.

After begrudgingly checking MOS I fixed this (but I don't like it!) ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Same for "Measure Name".

See above. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"$1,033,000,000 in" probably $1 billion would do here.

Fixed this. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"World War One $15 a month" World War I, and you've previously inflated these monetary values. There needs to be a consistent approach to inflating these values, I see many which aren't...

Fixed everything before the year 2000, which I'm going to use as the cutoff date (unless people want me to just apply it to all).

What's "poll tax"?

It's a tax since made illegal everywhere in the United States designed to prevent certain people (*cough cough*) from voting. I hyper-linked the relevant article. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 00:14, 8 April 2022 (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, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [18].

---

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2020)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon 09:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This article contains a list of winners of one of South Korea's music programs Music Bank in 2020. I have been working on this article for almost a year now. It has been copy edited and peer reviewed and I believe that it now meets the featured list criteria. This will be my first FL nomination so I hope to do well on this nomination.

Special thanks to Jonesey95 who copy edited this article and Kavyansh.Singh for participating in the peer review. EN-Jungwon 09:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• Had taken a look at images and ALT text during the peer review. Nothing has changed since then. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Is there a reason why the title is List of Music Bank Chart winners rather than List of Music Bank Chart number ones? We wouldn't have an article entitled "List of Billboard Hot 100 winners", for example...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I had followed the name of another similar article "List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2020)". I think it's mainly because the artist gets a trophy if their song is number one on the chart. EN-Jungwon 10:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

====Further comments==== "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music, Naver Vibe and Soribada. Starting in November, Soribada was replaced by Flo" - this doesn't seem quite right, as the first bit is in the present tense but includes Soribada, which you then go on to say is no longer used. Maybe try "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from a number of services including Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Naver Vibe. Soribada was also used until November when it was replaced by Flo." Replaced with "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Naver Vibe. Soribada was also used until November when it was replaced by Flo." "despite the lack of promotional activities on music programs." - source? Removed. "Red Velvet's sub-unit Red Velvet – Irene & Seulgi received their first music show win" - source for it being their first? Done. "Girl group (G)I-dle received their first Music Bank trophy" - source for it being their first? Done. "NCT's sub-units NCT Dream and NCT U won their first Music Bank award" - awards should be plural, also sources for them being their first? Removed as I could not find any sources, but checking back the the list of winners from the previos years confirms that this is their first wins on this show. "SF9 (top) and NCT Dream (bottom) received their first broadcast channel music show wins" - source? Source added for SF9. Removed NCT Dream per above. "Zico of Block B (left) and Hwasa of Mamamoo (right) received their first Music Bank awards" - source? Source added for Zico. Removed Hwasa. I'm a bit confused by the August 7/14 situation. You say that episode 1040 was actually broadcast on August 14, but then you list a separate winner on the row below which you say was announced on the website. So were two winners announced for August 14? And no winner for August 7? All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Regarding the August 7 14 situation. The episode 1040 was recorded on August 7 but due to some scheduling conflict it was broadcasted a week later on August 14. So during the show on August 14 the winner of August 7 was announced and the winner of August 14 was announced on their website later that day. I hope this made it a bit clear. EN-Jungwon 08:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude I have implemented the changes that you have requested. Thank you for reviewing this article. Happy editing and merry christmas. EN-Jungwon 14:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

Additionally, this is a source pass; did spotchecks earlier this week and I can't find any inaccuracies. GeraldWL 07:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 16:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

* I think the title is self-explanatory, so the short description can be changed to "none" Done. At first glance, paragraph 2 and 3 are too short and warrants a merge. Merged. "number of times the song"-- or the single? Fixed. "Soribada was also used until November"-- what year? Fixed. I think you can digitize the numbers: thirty-one to 31, twenty-four to 24, and twelve to 12. This is because some readers may find difficulty in reading numbers 10 and up in text. Fixed. I'm confused by what note c means, perhaps it can be extended for clarification? Removed. @Gerald Waldo Luis thank you for your comments. I have made the changes you you have suggested. -- EN-Jungwon 13:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, though I'll give another suggestion of adding the year this chart was established (1998 I think?) in the first lead sentence. But otherwise, nice work! GeraldWL 16:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Gerald Waldo Luis, I have added that to the lead sentence. Thank you for the suggestion. -- EN-Jungwon 17:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Support by Nkon21

• Support as I can't find anything in particular to comment on. Good work! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• I find the lead rather lightweight. I know ChrisTheDude has written literally more than 100 of these kinds of lists, perhaps you could work with him to expand the lead a little bit. It would be nice to have a little bit of the history of the chart there as well as some more facts about the artists etc.
  • Done. Expanded from 209 words to 414 words.
• "digital performance on domestic online music services" what does that mean, number of downloads/streams/combination?
• I think it would be informative to actually describe exactly how the points system works.
  • Unfortunately I was unable to find reliable sources that explains how it works. The only sources I found were from unreliable websites.
• "Exo member Suho received his first music show award..." reference?
  • Done.
• The table is sortable so every linked item in the table should linked every time.
  • Done.
• "Red Velvet – Irene & Seulgi" (in the image caption) should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • Done.
• Ref 1 also has a spaced hyphen which should be an endash.
  • Done.

That's it on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions @The Rambling Man. Apologies for the late reply. I haven't been feeling well these days and real life has been keeping me busy. I have made most of the changes you suggested. I am working on the lead in my sandbox and will try to get back to you before the end of the month. Thank you. -- EN-Jungwon 11:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, mostly done. The lead needs a lot of copyediting. -- EN-Jungwon 07:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have given the lead a copy edit and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 00:14, 8 April 2022 (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, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [19].

---

List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): --Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This list was previously nominated for FLC in 2008, but was declined for being too short.(And rightfully so.) I believe the article is now ready to be recognized as a Featured List, as it has all the necessary info, and similar articles for other teams are Featured like the Ravens, Rams and many more.. I look forward to the comments to know the reviews.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

Drive-by comment: While older FLs may use references placed at the end to source the list, the current standard is that citations should be placed in the body of the article. If a source is used for the entire list, it can be placed in the table caption or in a column heading instead of in each row. Also, the sources in the References section need to be updated; if the access dates are from 2007 and 2008, how can they be used as sources for the entire table through 2021? RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

With my drive-by comment resolved, here's a more thorough review.

• Image needs alt text
• "Houston Texans" should not be bolded in lead
• "2002 NFL draft" → "2002 NFL Draft"
• Footnotes explaining draft pick trades need to be sourced
• Footnotes c–f and g–h use two different styles to explain draft trades – pick one and stick with it
• References column should be unsortable
• Rename "Special References" section to "External links"
  • Also, website name should be "Houston Texans", not "Houston Texas"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead should probably specify that the Texans are an American football team. I know it says "joined the National Football League", but given how many different sports are called "football" by someone in the world, it would be best to be completely clear
• Paid is spelt incorrectly (unless "payed" is valid in American English?)
• Quarterback is wikilinked in the lead but offensive tackle not - any reason?
• Italics on always seem unnecessary to me
• "No player selected by the Texans has been enshrined in the Pro Football Hall Of Fame"- no player selected in the first round specifically, or no player ever selected?
• Row 2 of the key refers to the Ravens, presumably this is a copy/paste error.....?
• Sentence fragments like "Youngest player ever taken in modern draft era." should not have full stops. This applies to pretty much everything in the Notes column.
• As above, every row needs a specific reference. These would probably work best in a separate column.
• The key suggests that a dagger will appear against Pro Bowl players, but it doesn't
• Footnotes (eg "The franchise was established in 1999, but played its first season in 2002.") should be separated from actual references
• Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops (think this only applies to one note)
• Ref 11 shows no accessdate
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• @ChrisTheDude: All the problems have been solved now. you may please have a look.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The fourth and fifth comments above have not been addressed. Also, you have removed the full stops from all footnotes, including the ones which are complete sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Also, you have addressed the ninth by removing the dagger from the key. Apologies for being unclear, but what you should have done is left the dagger in the key and added it to the relevant players. For accessibility reasons, colour alone cannot be used as an identifier -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: I have added the daggers and have got the hof problem solved. I didn't spot any italics this time. I removed some seeing your first comment. Please inform me where they are. Also - I rechecked all the footnotes and found that all of them are free of full-stops. I hope we are allowed to keep other punctuations like comma's to give the sentence meaning. If I am wrong please inform me.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Re: the footnotes, my comment was "Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops". I never said to remove them from all notes. Notes a, c, d, e and f are complete sentences and therefore need full stops. Re: italics, my comment was "Italics on always seem unnecessary to me". I accept this is maybe ambiguous, so apologies. What I meant is that the word "always" is italicised twice in the lead and (IMO) there is no reason for this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Problem solved I guess.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• Note [a] is unreferenced.
• "cost of $700 million " inflate to 2020 $
• Isn't there a link for 2002 NFL draft?
• "team's most recent" put a year in there in case this doesn't get updated for a year or more...
• "with the worst record picking first" the record doesn't make the pick, the team with the worst record does...
• "the Super Bowl champion always picks 32nd, and the Super Bowl loser always picks " you don't need to repeat Super Bowl in either case here.
• Ref col doesn't need to be sortable.
• Row scope can be applied to the player name each time.
• For the 7x, 2x etc, are you using an x or a ×, the latter should be what's being used.
• The footnotes need references.
• NO SHOUTING in ref titles please.
• New York Times requires a subscription.
• Ref 7 doesn't need the publisher in the ref title.
• WaPo refs needs subs too.
• Why only WaPo linked in the refs, not NYT, Bleacher Report etc?
• What are "Special References"? do you mean "External links"?
• Put a bullet point in front of that "Special Reference".

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have solved most of the problems. I didn't get the row scope and the 7x, 2x thing. It would be nice if you could explain it once more. I have added citations to the footnotes. But the draft trade footnotes don't have refs. They are not even present in the draft-page. I also hope that the NYT and WaPo additions aren't a huge problem. I only used them as they are considered reliable. Wish you the best.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So for the 7x (7 times) are you using the x character (ecks) or the × symbol (multiplication symbol)? It should be the latter. Row scopes, read MOS:DTT to see how to add code into the table for compliance with MOS:ACCESS. Reliable sources such as WaPo are fine but use the url-access=subscription parameter if they need people to pay for them. And the footnotes need referencing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've solved all the other problems except the 'col method'. I couldn't get a hang of it and program started showing errors. And the links are no longer working. I'm kind of stuck. You can view my edits in the history to tell me where I was wrong.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look later and try to fix the issues I've raised! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I've done the row scopes. It's made the colour go away which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you so much.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• All the citations in the Ref column need to be center aligned. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Atlantis77177 – Any updates here? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I apologize for delay as I had personal matters to attend to in the stretch. I would also would like you to help me out here, as I am kind of a new editor, so what you meant wasn't exactly clear. Could you help me by fixing the problem yourself when you are free, as in that way we could easily solve your issue with the article.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, no issues at-all. I'll do it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; now done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: @Kavyansh.Singh: @The Rambling Man: Sorry for disturbing. But it's been a while now since I posted this request, and with almost all problems solved, I wished to know how the process would continue. Regards. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, this nomination just... never got anyone to fully review it. I'm going to go ahead and promote it now - source review passed; promoting. --PresN 00:14, 8 April 2022 (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.