Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2024

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Seattle Mariners seasons

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The third in a series of Seattle sports team season lists, freshly expanded and cleaned up in the hours since my last list passed its review. The Mariners are the only MLB team to not make the World Series and only recently ended a record playoff drought; they are the ultimate underdogs and the subject of a multi-hour YouTube documentary that resonated with a lot of people. This list's format is inspired by existing (but very old) baseball season FLs, with some modern tweaks borrowed from other sports FLs (particularly the NFL's). SounderBruce 07:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Image captions both need a full stop
  • Fixed.
• "the 21-year playoff drought was the longest in the North American major sports leagues" - is it still?
  • No longer, added some clarifications.
• "After the Washington Nationals won a National League title in 2019" => "After the Washington Nationals won the National League title in 2019" (existing wording could be taken to mean that multiple NL titles were on offer in 2019)
  • Fixed.
• " A players strike was called" => " A players' strike was called" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Fixed. @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review! SounderBruce 07:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Ref 2; link MLB.com
• Ref 9, 29; is the author Tom Verducci
• Ref 12; is the author Bob Hohler
• Ref 13; is the author Murray Chass
• Ref 19, 21, 36; is the author Ryan Divish
• Ref 26, 27; is the author Tracy Ringolsby
• Ref 32; is the author Ross Newhan
• Archive all the references
• In the "Key to colors", I suggest removing World Series champions and American League champions since they are not used at all in the article. If they are required in the future then they can be added back. Same with WS MVP – World Series Most Valuable Player Award in "Key to awards".

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 11:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: Author links have been added and citations archived. The key is meant to be consistent across all MLB lists, so I don't think their removal is necessary; other sports FLs have similar unused key items. SounderBruce 19:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support -- EN-Jungwon 01:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Both images are properly licensed and have alt text, so the image review passes. Nice work on the article. Support. -- ZooBlazer 22:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – After the fixes from earlier in the FLC, source reliability and formatting both look okay to me. Reference 29, which is to a Sports Illustrated article after the sale that turned a magazine I love into a dumpster fire, is one that I might question under normal circumstances, but Tom Verducci easily qualifies as a subject matter expert, so I'm not worried about that cite. Something to keep in mind for future uses of SI, though, as I'd be surprised if RSN doesn't declare post-sale SI articles unreliable at some point. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [2].

---

Municipalities of Guerrero

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is yet another list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 42 (!!) lists in North American jurisdictions. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews Mattximus (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• Should the "S" in Southwest Mexico be capitalised? From Googling, there seems to be a mixture of capitalised and non-capitalised, which indicates that Wikipedia should not capitalise it. There is no Wikipedia article on Southwest Mexico, but Guerrero does not capitalise the term.

• I don't have a strong opinion on this, but grammatically if it's a direction it's not capitalized but if it's a region or place, it is. So I can see why it goes either way since it is both.

• Seeing as there is a mix of capitalised and non-capitalised, it should be non capitalised on Wikipedia, as MOS:CAPS says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia".

• Should census be decapitalised?  Done
• Can Mexican Census link to Censo General de Población y Vivienda instead (a redirect from Mexican census)?  Done
• Can the population density column be split into two columns similar to land area? That column really stands out by having the units and two different measurements all in the same column, and with the size of my screen, there are some rows which have the km2 and sq mi on different lines which makes reading down the column hard.

• For this I don't really have a strong opinion either way, your suggestion is probably a bit better than it is now. I'm not sure why this format was chosen originally but almost all lists for all Mexican and American states have this format. It would be odd to make this one stand out with a different format than all the others, and it would be too onerous to change all 85 other lists (including dozens of featured lists) to then match this one. Not sure if this is a critical change you are suggesting? Mattximus (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• I do truly believe this would make this list better, and the other lists too. If it's too onerous to change all lists over right now, you can change this list over now and the other lists over time. Is it really that big a deal if there is a slight inconsistency with the lists for a while? Steelkamp (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• For the first image, the alt text shouldn't really duplicate the caption. One solution is to set the alt text to "refer to caption" as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images.  Done

That's all from me. Steelkamp (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! I've resolved or asked a follow up question for all comments. Mattximus (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: I received a comment in the talk page about updating 4 new municipalities. I've updated one so far. Mattximus (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I see. Just making sure you've seen this message. Steelkamp (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've now completed all changes and fixed all errors posted on the talk page. I've reflected upon this last change and I'm wondering if it's a dealbreaker. It would take dozens and dozens of hours to change all the featured lists to your suggested format, but it would be odd to have this one stand out as different. Mattximus (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I still think the the population density should be split into two columns. This would come under the Visual appeal portion of the featured list criteria. Steelkamp (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging PresN ... No rush on this, I'm aware that sometimes you like to weigh in on formatting questions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is... overall, I don't think it has to be split. Persons/sqkm and persons/sqmi are equivalent and will always sort the exact same, it's just two different ways of expressing the same concept. I do think it's slightly odd to have it split for area but not density, but given that it took more than 40 lists (and FLCs) before the point was raised, I think it's a very minor issue. (It also makes the table even wider- I did a quick find-and-replace with a regex (\{\{Pop density\|([\d\. ]+)\|([\d\. ]+)\|km2\|sqmi\|prec=1\}\} -> {{Pop density|$1|$2|prec=1}} || {{Pop density|$1|$2|km2|sqmi|prec=1|disp=num}}, which misses some rows), and it really squishes the table more than it already is.) Ultimately, I wouldn't not promote if that was the only outstanding issue. --PresN 20:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I support. Steelkamp (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Typos in the notes section: "there are no ... information" and "in May 23, 1874 then" (missing comma)
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but that tool is mainly focused on English-language sources, and 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.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. Note that I don't speak or read Spanish, so more input will be needed on this FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't read Spanish either and had another user help with this. I have fixed the two typos you mentioned above. Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed (with schoolboy Spanish); promoting. --PresN 16:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Sydney Metro stations

Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a list of stations on the newest and only rapid transit system in Australia. The Sydney Metro only opened in 2019, but there are plans to rapidly expand it over the next decade, causing the largest part of the list to be the future stations section. This would be my first featured list and WikiProject Australian Transport's first featured list if it passes. As the Sydney Metro is quite new, its far easier to find sources and write a featured list than on many older systems, which is why I chose to do this list as my first featured list candidate. I welcome any feedback. Steelkamp (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport is planned to open in 2026 upon the opening of the Western Sydney Airport.[6][9] The Western Sydney Airport line will have six new metro stations.[10] The Sydney Metro West is planned to open in 2030. This section will have nine new stations, all of which will be underground" - these four sentences are quite short and choppy and I think the first two and last two could be combined, by using "and will have"
• Original opening dates for Chatswood and Epping don't seem to be sourced.....?
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I have implemented these suggestions. Steelkamp (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Personally I would remove the notes column and simply add a notes section at bottom (using {{#tag:ref| and notelist). My reasoning is that most stations don't have any notes and some are triplicated (all three could link to a single note). Same with second list, one note is repeated 6 times (!!!). This will make it a cleaner looking tables, and not looking like random factoids for some stations.
  • I have instead created a transfers column and put the original opening dates as notes. How is that?
• I'm confused at the missing lines column for the second table, could that not include transfers instead of having them in the notes?
  • For the first table, the lines column only lists the Sydney Metro line at each station, not the Sydney Trains lines or NSW TrainLink lines, which is just a list design choice on my part seeing as this is a list focused on the Sydney Metro. I don't want to do a lines column for the second table because we have no idea what the lines are going to be called when those sections open. The Sydney Metro City & Southwest project is going to be served by an extension of the Metro North West Line, but I would be very surprised if that name does not change when the City & Southwest project opens in 2024 and 2025 considering the direction would be contradictory. As for the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport and Sydney Metro West, those projects don't even have a separate page for the lines yet which means there is nothing to list in that column for the stations on those projects.
• Is there any information on ridership? This would make for an interesting column
  • I haven't been able to find any complete data on ridership for each station. I have asked another user if they know of any source for this data though.
• Is there any symbol used for the lines, this is common for many list of stations to help readers connect what they see in real life to the list.
  • No distinct symbols or colours for each line yet. Currently, there is File:TfNSW M.svg, but that is only used to distinguish the one currently open metro line with the Sydney Trains lines.

• Very nice looking list overall! Mattximus (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review Mattximus. I have addressed all your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Changes all look good, I'm close to support, just a few more minor quibbles:

• I changed the formatting of the legend using the legend template, I made the change myself, is this ok?
  • That looks good. I didn't even know that template existed.
• I would move the map at the top to the section called "future stations" (justified right) and include a map of current stations at the top of the page. This will prevent confusion.
  • That would require making a new map. I will try to make an interactive map using Template:Maplink and OpenStreetMap, but that will be a few days away.
    • While this would be ideal for a featured list, even just moving the map with future stations to beside the future stations table would be sufficient. Mattximus (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• I think the first sentence of the last paragraph should be at the end of the first paragraph. The article is about stations so stations and station numbers should be mentioned in the first paragraph.
  • Good point. I have done that.
• The second sentence of the last paragraph needs some grammatical work. Instead of " It is planned that", it can be. "There are x stations and x km of track under construction with a planned opening of 2030" or something like that.
  • I have reworded this sentence. How is it now?
    • Much better than my wording even.

• Second pass done! Mattximus (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I have tried to create a map from OSM, but the Sydney Metro West and Western Sydney Airport projects are not OSM right now which means this option is out of the question. If we are to keep the current image, I think the lead is still the best spot for it as the lead goes over the whole list, including current and future stations. Plus at least on my screen, having an image within the future stations section would make the table considerably squished, so I don't think its a good idea to have an image there. Steelkamp (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• While I still disagree about the map, all other suggestions and changes were met. Well done on the article! Support Mattximus (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2023 (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. ! Station becomes !scope=col | Station. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | [[Bella Vista railway station|Bella Vista]] becomes !scope=row | [[Bella Vista railway station|Bella Vista]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review! All those changes have been made. Steelkamp (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [4].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in India

Nominator(s): Tone 08:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, here is a very long list! India has 42 sites on the list and a further 50 on the tentative one. As opposed to some other WHS lists, this one is seeing some more editing but the list itself is stable enough. Latvia has just been promoted and Germany is seeing support, so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 08:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – The tables use forced column widths for no apparent reason, while they create unnecessarily empty cells. I tried to change this, but the nominator reverted my edits without explanation. – Editør (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  The fixed columns parameter was used for consistency between the WHS lists. However, it is true that the particular format was applied before the overhaul in the default display, which makes the articles much more narrow. I am open to changes, however, whatever we do, I would like to have the column widths consistent between the main and the tentative tables. Tone 11:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  If changes in the default display negatively effect the standard layout of these WHS lists, I think it is worth looking into it. Also, I noticed that the wide maps at the beginning tend to squeeze the text in narrower windows, try viewing the India list at 850 pixels wide. – Editør (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a lot of grammar issues here and I'm not going to try to list them all. Tone, I think it would be easiest for me to copyedit this, but I wouldn't !vote afterwards – would that work for you? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, go ahead. Appreciated! I went through several times but, as you know, after several readings, you cannot spot mistakes anymore :) Tone 06:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I've made my edits to the article – if any look wrong, let me know. I don't want to formally !vote since that's usually discouraged after contributing to the article beyond one or two tweaks (at least from my experience), but consider this an informal support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, I checked, I thing everything works. As said, this article was edited extensively not just by me so it was more difficult to keep track on everything due to its sheer size. Tone 12:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support I did some small grammar fixes, but not too manu. Great list; I learned a lot! --TheUzbek (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support did some minor copy-editing, mostly just moving around articles, and no other concerns. AryKun (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The map is well over the size limit in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size.
• "exhibited strong influence in India". This makes no sense. Do you mean influenced by other art or influenced other art?
• "This site comprises two properties in the West Himalayas". "properties" is an odd word for nature reserves. Maybe "areas".
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  As for the image, MOS mentions exceptional situations, which I think is a valid reason to have it larger. Germany's map is 500px. I can make it 500px here and it still does not look too crowded. I'll wait until the rest of the comments before I go through with changes. Tone 10:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• The MOS strongly advises using upright= rather than px. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The source for Namdapha National Park goes to River Island.
• "Mughal gardens are gardens built by the Mughals. This style was influenced by Persian gardens" I do not think you need to say that they were built by the Mughals. Maybe "The Mughal gardens were built in a style influenced by Persian gardens.
• "They have a distinct culture from other tribes in the region". This reads oddly to me. Maybe "a culture which is distinct from that of other tribes".
• "Chilika Lake is a large brackish water lagoon, fed by over 50 rivers and streams. It is an ephemeral formation". The source does not say that the lake is ephemeral, it says it is in an ephemeral environment.
• "The island is important given the evolution of species on isolated islands." This does not really mean anything. Maybe "The island provides an important example of evolutionary processes due to its isolation."
• "Material remains at the site, hinting at the interactions with other regional cultures." What does this mean?
• "Lothal is the only explored port-town of the Indus Valley civilisation". The source says the only port town. Leave out "explored".
• "The fortified consisted of a citadel with wide streets". fortified what?
• "were influential in temples from later periods. " "were influential in temples built in later periods."
• "It is also home to several animal and plant species." This applies to all areas.
• "The dolmens and rock paintings date to the 1st millennium BCE to the Iron Age". I am not sure where you got this from. 1st millennium dolmens is in a comparison with Korea. The source refers to Mesolithic rock art, which according to the wiki article is 12,000 and 8,000 BP in India. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am through. Thank you, great comments, as always. What do you propose regarding the image? If I use upright, this creates a mess with the overlapping text. I am not sure if there is a better way to have a clickable map like that. Italy, Canada, the US, and probably others also have large maps and this is the first time this was an issue. I still suppose this could be one of the exceptions? Tone 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging @Dudley Miles: as Tone didn't so you likely missed it; this nomination has been hanging around for a while so I wanted to give it a nudge. --PresN 03:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Source reliability and formatting both look okay throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 20:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [5].

---

List of accolades received by The Wind Rises

Nominator(s): Harushiga (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by Hayao Miyazaki's 2013 film The Wind Rises. This is my third nomination, and after expanding and adding sources, I believe it now meets the criteria. Any feedback is appreciated! Harushiga (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "It grossed $136.8 million worldwide" - as the film was made in a country that does not use a $ currency, it is unclear which currency this actually represents. Presumably US, but could you clarify?
• Think that's it - nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Yes, it is US dollars. Fixed. Harushiga (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Always love to see some Ghibli content up at a content review venue! I just have a few things. Citation numbers are from this revision.

• I'd remove citation 1 per MOS:LEADCITE. It seems a bit excessive to cite basic first-sentence information from the film's production company, but it's up to you.
  • Not done. I'd rather keep it so that the information can be easily verified.
• The second sentence runs on a bit too long. It seems to deal with two different things: Anno's voice acting role, and Horikoshi being the subject. I'd split the sentence into two to reflect this and, while we're at it, mention the other voice actors who star in the film.
  • Done.
• Most of the award ceremonies are referred to with ordinal numbers, except for the 2014 Tokyo Anime Awards. I'd stick to one or the other for consistency.
  • Removed the year.

    Up to you whether you want to include an ordinal number or not for this; I just read through Tokyo Anime Award and understand that it might be a little confusing to go either way due to the odd distinction between the TAA and the TAAF. —TS

• Is there a reason certain citations (especially Anime News Network) use |publisher= instead of |website=?
  • It's based on how their respective Wikipedia articles stylize the publication's name. Anime News Network's article doesn't italicize the name, so I used |publisher=. Same for something like The Hollywood Reporter; since the name is italicized, |website= is used instead.

    Hmm, now I want to know why they're not italicized in those articles! I digress, though, and your answer is good enough for me in this case. —TS

• Italicize Kinema Junpo in citation 28.
  • Done.
• Citations 30 and 49 need {{hair space}}s to fix kerning issues. (Also, replace the ampersand in 30 per MOS:&.)
  • Done.
• "The National Board of Review and several film critic organizations..." might be less awkward as "Several film critic organizations, including the National Board of Review...".
  • Replaced.
• The recipients for the Golden Trailer Awards are in double quotation marks; are those titles the actual names of those media? Something like "UK Trailer", for example, seems like it can drop the quotes so we're not implying it's a proper name.
  • They're the actual names of the trailers, which is why they're in double quotation marks.
• Image review passed; File:Hayao Miyazaki cropped 1 Hayao Miyazaki 201211.jpg is under an appropriate free license (and/or public domain in Japan? Copyright is weird) and is tagged accordingly.

Let me know if you have any questions, and good luck with the rest of the candidacy! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Thank you for the thorough review! I've addressed your comments above. Harushiga (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Harushiga! Nice work on this list overall, it's a support from me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Support by Chompy Ace

Support. Great job as a nearly flawless list! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by The Martian (film) regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 19:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 20:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [6].

---

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Kids and Family Programming

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Surprising nobody, I've worked on another GLAAD-related list. A much more recent addition to the GLAAD Media Awards, this category focuses on programmes made for younger audiences that feature LGBT themes and topics. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Comments

• "Concerning the invention of this category" - I think maybe "creation" rather than "invention" here
  • Done.
• "arguing about the importance of younger indiviausl" - last word is a bit jumbled :-)
  • "jumbled". It was a straight up crime scene.
• "in 2020 where Hulu's The Bravest Knight and Disney+'s won" - something missing after "Disney+'s"
  • Added.
• "and again the following year in 20221" - good to get a prediction of what will win 18000 years in the future :-) But, in seriousness, given that you said "the following year" I don't think you need to state the year at all
  • I'm sorry, but I couldn't stop laughing for almost 1 minute; XD. Fixed it.
• "the award was split into an Animated and Live Action category" => "the award was split into Animated and Live Action categories"
  • Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• "GLAAD monitors mainstream media to identify which documentaries will be nominated" - sudden mention of documentaries? Copy and paste issue?
  • Oops. Me? Copypaste from my previous work? Naur, I'd never do that...
• "Since its inception, the award has been given to 9 programmes" => "Since its inception, the award has been given to nine programmes" Also, I may be wrong, being British, but isn't it spelt "programs" in the States?
  • Yeah, I think it's only when you have something like 20 and higher that digits rather than words are used for numbers. I'm a non-native speaker, so I often mix different spelling, but yes, you're right. Changed it.
• "The following networks received" - I would say "The following networks have received" so it doesn't read like the awards have ended
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Use a consistent date format in the references
  • Done.
• Add a short description. I went through some of your other nominations related to GLAAD and noticed that some lists have no short description (no {{Short description}} template), some have intentionally no description ({{Short description|none}}) and some lists have short descriptions.
  • Done. Hopefully the description is acceptable.
• Is there a need for the "Networks" subsection heading? I suggest removing the heading for now and in the future if a program receives more than one award then create two sections for "Networks" and "Programs".
  • Yeah, I guess when there's not even 1 show to have won twice, it's somewhat unnecessary.
• Ref 1 and 5 redirect to the same page. Merge them. Or maybe the url status can be changed to dead?
  • @EN-Jungwon: Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 07:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there has been a misunderstanding with the third point. I was asking for the heading to be removed. Not the whole section. Was this intentional? -- EN-Jungwon 06:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I think I realize. Still, as no shows have won twice or more, it seems a bit odd to have the section just for the networks. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support -- EN-Jungwon 10:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

Great work with this list, as you always do with the GLAAD Awards series. I do not have any comments as I did not notice anything that required further improvement. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

Version reviewed

Formatting

• Fn 7 - doesn't include a publisher parameter, as you did with other citations i.e. Deadline and Hollywood Reporter. As a matter of consistency, worth adding Penske Media too.

• Done.

• Fn 12 - Worth linking Dotdash Meredith, since you've linked every instance of the publisher with a wiki article.

• Done.

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles should be written in either sentence or title case regardless of how they appear in the article. This should be consistent, since it looks like you've wrote them in Title Case. Fn 2 and Fn 12 should be written similar then.

• Done.

Reliability

• The citations seem to be of high quality with such information on the subject. The news sources in question seems to be professional and well-circulated sites/publications.

Verifiability

• Fn 2 - checks out
• Fn 5 - I can't seem to find any mention of Shareholders Circle members, are they considered GLAAD board or members?

• @Pseud 14: Thank you for the comments and support. Regarding this issue, it turns out the source was updated recently. The archived link does reference the shareholders circle, so I've changed the url status to "dead". --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ah that makes sense to me now, and I can confirm from the archive link that it checks out.

• Fn 9 - checks out
• Fn 13 - checks out
• Fn 17 - checks out

Overall, mostly very minor concerns. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my comments and making the formatting changes. This passes source review. On a separate note, If you have spare time, I was wondering if you'd be willing to provide some feedback on my current FAC. It's a short BLP article, and hopefully not too long to read. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Support by Chompy Ace

Support. This is an excellent list! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by The Martian (film) regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 21:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 20:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [7].

---

List of songs recorded by SB19

Nominator(s): – Abacusada (t • c) 08:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Known for their single "Gento", this Filipino boy band has gotten a step foot in international recognition and promoting P-pop music. In the band's five-year music career, they have continued to release music here and there. This list contains all of the group's music releases from 2018 up to now, including those not included on the main SB19 discography list.

I have been actively taking part in covering SB19 on Wikipedia. I am nominating this for featured list since I believe Filipino music artists should have a space on Wikipedia that is of high-quality coverage, and I think this list can offer just that.

This is my first FLC nomination, all suggestions and feedback are welcome and much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers who will put their time and effort here. – Abacusada (t • c) 08:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

• Its single, "Go Up" (2019), went viral, - where did it go viral? If no info is available, don't worry about it, but it's often helpful to clarify where it went viral

Done: Another source mentioned it went viral on YouTube.

• They explored different musical styles, such as hip hop and EDM,[7] for their first EP, Pagsibol, released in 2021,[8] which was solely written by Pablo, including its 2021 singles, "What?", "Mapa" and "Bazinga". - tons of commas here, would be better split into two sentences. Perhaps "They explored different musical styles, such as hip hop and EDM,[7] for their first EP, Pagsibol, released in 2021.[8] Pagsibol was solely written by Pablo, including its 2021 singles, "What?", "Mapa" and "Bazinga"."

Done

Abacusada, I got nothing else, caught most things at the PR. Amazing work!

Thanks for stopping by, MyCatIsAChonk! Appreciate your time here. I have put into action your suggestions. Happy holidays! – Abacusada (t • c) 14:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! – Abacusada (t • c) 15:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption isn't a sentence so it shouldn't have a full stop

Done

• "the boy band also recorded songs with other artists" => "the boy band has also recorded songs with other artists"

Done

• "In addition to their material," => "In addition to their own material,"

Done

• Use "upright", not fixed pixel sizes, for the images alongside the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Done

Thanks for your comments, ChrisTheDude! I have put them into action. Let me know if you have anything else. Happy holidays! (P.S. Congrats on your another FL!) – Abacusada (t • c) 05:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! – Abacusada (t • c) 08:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• {{Sort|SB19|SB19}} → SB19

Done and also fixed sorting for other song artists

Oh, my brain just went with the fireworks as I just realized I did the exact opposite of what you asked me to. Let me fix that.

Removed sorting templates for songs that only have SB19 on them in the "Artist(s)" column. I also changed how sorting works for songs with multiple artists. Please do let me know if those changes are up to your expectations.

• I understand the use of {{Sort}} in the "Artist(s)" column but feel like it's unnecessary in the "Song" and "Album" columns. I suggest removing it since it will sort correctly even without the template.

Removed templates in the "Song" and "Album" columns; "The One" still has the template since the leading article should be placed at the end when sorted (per WP:SORTKEY)

I have to say I've been looking at this list since you transcluded the nomination on the main FLC page but was unable to find anything to critique until now. Good job on your first FLC. -- EN-Jungwon 12:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being here, EN-Jungwon, and for your kind words! I agree with your suggestions and have put them into action. I also have left comments above. Let me know if you have anything else. Happy New Year! – Abacusada (t • c) 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for misinterpreting the first item. I think everything should be good now after a second look. – Abacusada (t • c) 20:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Good luck. -- EN-Jungwon 01:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! – Abacusada (t • c) 06:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text
• Source review: Passed
  • Link checker shows no issues
  • Reliable for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks: version reviewed
  • FN 1 - ok
  • FN 6 - ok
  • FN 8 - ok
  • FN 12 - ok
  • FN 26 - ok
  • FN 30 - ok
  • FN 44 - ok

Comments Support

• Songs like "Mapa" and "No Stopping You" (same writer) do not need to be listed twice. Include the version released at a later date in a note saying they rerecorded, remixed or issued a certain version with ____, and was released on _____. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for reviewing the list, Pseud 14! I will get your comment done after my class today. Will ping you if so. Happy New Year! – Abacusada (t • c) 22:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, Pseud 14! Apologies for taking a day; I just found time to address this. I have replaced the "Mapa (Band Version)" and "No Stopping You (Remix)" entries with each having a note in the latest revision. Let me know if that will do. Once again, thanks! – Abacusada (t • c) 13:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your support! – Abacusada (t • c) 08:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your support! – Abacusada (t • c) 08:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Hot Black Singles number ones of 1984

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

If you need a list! / Of number ones! / Who you gonna call?

Me, it seems.... :-)

Here's my latest offering - feedback as ever will be gratefully received and quickly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• Should the link to List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 1984 in see also have Billboard' italicised?
• Can you explain why "Joanna" by Kool & the Gang is mentioned in the lead?

That's all I have to comment. Steelkamp (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. For the record, I also checked the table's sort order, checked the lead against the table, and spot-checked several sources. Everything lines up. Steelkamp (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text
• Source review: Passed
  • Link checker shows no issues
  • Reliable for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Support. I got nothing, great work as always Chris. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [9].

---

Timeline of Brexit

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(This is my first FL nomination in over four years, so I hope the process hasn't changed that much since then...) I've been working on this list for a few months now, and, following a peer review from User:Llewee, I now feel that it is worthy of the bronze star. The structure of the article is largely based on Timeline of the Manhattan Project, currently a FL. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is this a list? FOARP (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • There are, by my count, over fifty "Timeline of ..." articles in WP:Featured lists, and none in WP:Featured articles. So the implicit consensus of the community seems to be that timeline articles are lists. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Spell out United Kingdom and European Union at their first occurrence (and probably link them as well)
  • Both of these are listed as exceptions in MOS:ACRO#Countries and multinational unions. Countries are listed as exceptions in MOS:OVERLINK, but I've wikilinked EU. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "Prime Minister" should be / should not be capitalized in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLE
  • Same for "Leader of the Opposition", "Chief Negotiator"
    • Got them all (I think). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "post-war" – not a fan of this term since it's unclear which war it refers to
  • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "the 'long campaign'" – capitalize "The"
  • Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "and will now be placed" – don't use future tense (comes off as awkward for an article set in the past)
  • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "Royal Assent" – use lowercase (occurs several times)
  • Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "will now take place" – don't use future tense
  • Rewriten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "the value of pound sterling" → "the value of the pound sterling"
  • Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "that will give Theresa May" – use last name only and don't use future tense
  • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "The day that the Article 50 period ..." – sentence fragment
  • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• "will now be selected" – don't use future tense
  • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Overall, this is pretty solid – sources seem good (though this isn't a formal source review) and most of it is well-written. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, RunningTiger123! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Only major issue is the capitalization of "Prime Minister" in a few captions. I also disagree that EU and UK should be abbreviated in the lead – since both are key to this article, it's especially important to ensure readers know what they are – but if the MOS disagrees, so be it. I'll trust that the edits get made and support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Now done. Thanks for the support, RunningTiger! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

• After negotiations throughout 2020, on 24 December the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement was announced - reverse second clause; "After negotiations throughout 2020, the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement was announced on 24 December..."

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• As of 2023, the broad consensus of economists is that leaving the EU has had a substantially negative effect on the UK's economy, which is expected to be several percentage points smaller than it would have been if it had remained in the bloc. - this is contentious, add some citations to back it per WP:WHENNOTCITE

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wl Eurosceptic, 2015 general election, and Bloomberg speech first time outside of lead

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• 10 November: use Tusk's full name and title, and wl

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• 9 June: The ITV Referendum Debate, a live TV debate on Brexit, is broadcast by ITV - nothing on the participants or results of the debate? same for 21 June: EU Referendum: The Great Debate is broadcast live from Wembley Arena on BBC One. With 6,000 people in the audience, it is the largest televised debate on the issue

• Neither debate had a result exactly, but I've added in how many participants each debate had, if that's an improvement. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• 5–8 December: The Supreme Court convenes to hear the government's appeal against the High Court ruling. For the first time ever, all 11 judges sit en banc to hear the case - the first time in the history of the supreme court, or the first time for that particular group of judges? Clarify

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• 22 May: Following a backlash to the proposed reforms, May announces that an "absolute limit" on the amount of money that a person would have to pay for social care. - this sentence may just be not clicking with me, but don't you mean "May announces that an 'absolute limit' would be placed on the..."

• Sorry, misplaced "that". The sentence now reads May announces an "absolute limit" on the amount of money that etc. Is that clear? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wl prorogues

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors, I'm impressed to say that's all for such a long article. That was one hell of a read- as an American, I wasn't too aware of the exact timeline of Brexit, so this was an enlightening read. Excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, MyCatIsAChonk! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Support - lovely work! By the way, if you get time, I'd appreciate any comments at this FLC. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Pretty solid work! For the delegates:

• Earwig not working for me, assuming WP:AGF
• No spot checks performed.

• "9781509905812" — Per WP:ISBN "Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts. The placement of hyphens varies depending on the value of the ISBN." \
  • Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• I am unaware of 'Politico Europe's reliability. Can you help.
  • Politico is listed as "Generally reliable" on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so I think it's okay. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Could be have a more specific link to Election commission?
  • Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats all, nothing much to add. The references are consistently cited, and looks fine on reliability! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review, Kavyansh.Singh! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Pass. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for your source review, Kavyansh.Singh. If you have the time, would you perhaps be willing to provide a full review of the list against the FL criteria, please? I think the article's quite close to being promoted, it just needs one or two more reviews. Only if you have the time, of course. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Goldsztajn

Mostly focussing on the image captions, in general, they need more context. An observation, the use of full names without titles in the captions I think makes the captions somewhat informal.

captions

• "The signing of the Maastricht Treaty (pictured) on 7 February 1992 began the formal establishment the European Union." -> "The Maastricht Treaty (pictured), signed on 7 February 1992, legally established the European Union." (ambiguous in the first version: is it the treaty or the signing of the treaty being pictured? I don't feel formal is the correct word here).

• "David Cameron (left) and Nick Clegg (right), pictured in 2015" -> "Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Clegg in February 2015, during the period of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government"

• "David Cameron delivering the Bloomberg speech on 23 January 2013" -> "Prime Minister Cameron's Bloomberg speech on 23 January 2013, when an in-out referendum on EU membership was first promised."

• "Ed Miliband speaking on Labour's foreign policy on 24 April 2015" -> "Labour leader Ed Miliband criticised government foreign policy, including the handling of the EU referendum, in a speech two weeks before the 2015 general election."

• "The front cover of the pro-EU leaflet" - this caption needs more context - it should be identified as an official Government publication. Eg, the image description is better: "The front cover of the 2016 EU leaflet, sent to UK households by the British government in April 2016"

• "Boris Johnson speaking at Chatham House on 2 December 2016" -> "Boris Johnson, who supported the Vote Leave campaign from the backbench, speaking at Chatham House on 2 December 2016"

• "Theresa May's letter to Donald Tusk, officially invoking Article 50" -> Prime Minister Theresa May's letter to President Donald Tusk, invoking Article 50, indicating the UK's intention to leave the EU.

• "Arlene Foster (left) and Theresa May (right), pictured in 2016" -> DUP leader Arlene Foster's support to Prime Minister Theresa May following the 2017 election produced the Conservative–DUP agreement.
  • I've added additional context to all these captions. Let me know what you think. One thing that I haven't changed is adding in people's titles – MOS:PEOPLETITLES says to only use these "where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context", which doesn't seem to apply in this instance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a protest photo from the remain side, given the celebration photo at the end. Possibly this one from 2017 outside the Conservative Party conference.

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Text

• "The below timeline is a history of Brexit following the Bloomberg speech." This sentence feels redundant, could be dropped. Also, if the timeline follows the Bloomberg speech, then the Bloomberg speech shouldn't be in the timeline, rather the timeline *starts* with the Bloomberg speech.
  • Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "In a speech on Labour's foreign policy, Miliband warns that a referendum on an "arbitrary timetable" hazards the UK's place in the EU." The sources here don't suppport this claim, the text appears to sythesise language from one to the other. The Economist confirms that he gave the speech and reports that Milliband criticised Cameron for being weak before Tory Eurosceptics ("Cameron’s craven concessions to Tory Eurosceptics had hazarded the country’s place in the EU"). From the speech itself, Miliband mentions the arbitrary timetable as part of a broad set of problems related to the EU referendum, among other things, but he's using this to criticise Tory foreign policy in general as threatening the UK's place in the world.
  • Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• 15 December: "The EU announces that "sufficient progress" has been made in the first phase of Brexit negotiations, and that talks can now move on to the second phase." replace "now move on" with "proceed"
  • Changed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Goldsztajn! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up on captions

@A Thousand Doors: Thanks for the changes to the captions, gives a much better context. Some follow up.

• Regarding MOS:PEOPLETITLES, you've somewhat cherry picked the quote, the full sentence reads: "Aside from mentioning them in the lead sentence of a biographical subject's own article, only use titles where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context." This is not a biogrpahy. I think the most resonable thing here would be in the first instance of an image showing a subject, they should be included with their title and full name, with subsequent images using just their surname. So, "Prime Minister David Cameron (left) and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (right) in February 2015, during the period of the Cameron–Clegg coalition" and "David Cameron delivering the Bloomberg speech on 23 January 2013, when an in-out referendum on EU membership was first promised[22]".
• "Labour leader Ed Miliband criticised government foreign policy...", "David Cameron announcing his resignation as prime minister on 24 June 2016" etc.
• "Thousands gather in Parliament Square to celebrate the moment that the UK officially leaves the EU at 23:00 on 31 January 2020" I find this caption straying somewhat away from NPOV, especially in the broader context that hundreds of thousands of people protested on both sides throughout this period. As an alternative, I'd suggest: "Crowds gather in Parliament Square to mark the UK's official departure from the EU as of 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020."
• "Boris Johnson negotiating a UK–EU trade deal over the phone with Ursula von der Leyen on 7 December 2020" the source does not indicate the photo depicts Johnson negotiating, unnecessary to mention he's on the phone. Better to state: "Johnson speaking with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the time of the UK–EU trade negotiations, 7 December 2020."

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Goldsztajn: All done, thanks again. I've kept "over the phone" for accessibility reasons: you and I can see that he's obviously speaking on the phone, but anyone using a screen reader wouldn't be able to. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• @Goldsztajn: Do you have any further comments on the article? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: thank you for the reminder ping. I've got a few more comments, will come back to you within 24 hours. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

One quick follow up - re: the image of Johnson on the phone, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images - this kind of information should be conveyed via the alt text parameter. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Just want to give you another nudge about this, whenever you've got a moment. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up on lede

@A Thousand Doors: apologies for my longer than expected delay. Some more comments.

• First sentence, first appearance of "European Union" should be followed by "(EU)".

• MOS:ACRO#Countries and multinational unions lists "EU" as an acronym that doesn't need to be provided in parentheses on its first use. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• "As of 2020, the UK is the only sovereign country to have left the EU." This could imply that a non-soverign country has left. Would probably be better to state "As of 2023, the UK is the only member state to have left the EU."

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Britain's membership of the EU began on 1 January 1973" - this is not correct, Britain's membership in the EU dates from 1 November 1993, when the provisions of the Maastrict Treaty come into force.

• Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• I would suggest rewording this part as: "With Britain's entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973, the predecessor to the EU, Eurosceptic groups unsuccessfully challenged Britain's membership in a 1975 referendum." (It's not correct to state Eurosceptic groups formed after entry, Eurosceptic groups predate the UK's membership in the EEC).

• Replaced "formed" with "grew in popularity". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• It's somewhat of a large jump here, a bridging sentence is needed. Suggeston: "Despite this loss, opposition to membership continued in subsequent decades, particularly, but not exclusively, from elements of the Conservative Party."

• Rewritten as "As Euroscepticism increased in the early 2010s, Prime Minister David Cameron delivered a speech in January 2013 at Bloomberg London etc. etc." A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Shorten next sentence as: "In January 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron promised an in–out referendum on EU membership if the Conservative Party won a majority at the 2015 general election."

• I'd prefer to keep the explicit reference to the Bloomberg speech, as that's the starting point for the timeline. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Shorten and clarify next sentence as: "As a result of securing a majority, a bill to hold a referendum was introduced in May 2015."
• "In February 2016, Cameron announced the date of the referendum as 23 June that year." Drop campaigning mention.
• Drop "in the poll" from next sentence.

• The above three points seem to be more personal preference than the prose being incorrect or not meeting the featured list criteria, so I'd prefer to keep it as it is unless there's consensus from the community that it should be changed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• The next part is missing mention of the 2017 election and the resulting minority government. Subsequent sections only make sense if material here is added.

• I did consider that, but the lead's already pretty long as it is, and adding in another sentence about a general election that ultimately didn't really affect whether or not May's Brexit deal passed through the Commoms seems to me like it might just unnecessarily obfuscate things. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Suggested revision: "With the passage of legal formalities for Brexit deadlocked, Parliament voted for a 12 December general election following the passing of an act which prohibited the possibility of a no-deal Brexit." Mention of no deal Brexit is important here as this was the only way Parliamentrary consensus could be reached for the early election.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that that's true – Corbyn only backed an early general election after the EU agreed to delay Brexit by three months, and it was this that took a no-deal departure off the table, rather than an act of Parliament. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Thank you for your further comments, Goldsztajn. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment

• Hey A Thousand Doors, I thought I'd suggest this in case it helps but I think the article would benefit from having a See also section with a link to either Timeline of British history (1990–present) or Timeline of British history which I think connects a lot with this article's subject and might be useful to readers (although I understand if you're against it given both those articles are not in great shape). Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Dantheanimator: Done, thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• @Dantheanimator: No worries if you don't have the time, but do you have any other suggestions for changes that I could make to this article so that it meets the featured list criteria? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• @A Thousand Doors: apologies for not replying earlier but here's the few comments I have:

• On 24 October 2011, Cameron suffered the largest rebellion over Europe since World War II when 81 Conservative MPs voted in favour - reword this (the words "suffer" and "rebellion" just sound off here in comparison to the rest of the section)

• Replaced "suffered" with "experienced", but the incident is described as a "rebellion" by every reliable source that I can find (e.g. [10], [11], [12]). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• A bit better but maybe replace "Europe" with "European integration"? It might just be me but the wording "largest rebellion over Europe since World War II" still makes it sound like an armed rebellion yk. If a year's given, maybe replace "World War II" with the specific year that this last rebellion happened. Dan the Animator 05:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Faced with this growing Euroscepticism, on 23 January 2013 Cameron delivered a "long-awaited" speech at Bloomberg London, in which he promised an in–out referendum on EU membership if the Conservatives won a majority at the 2015 general election. This became known as the "Bloomberg speech". - reword and condense this into one sentence. The "long-awaited" quote is unnecessary imo (the rest of the section makes it clear that people were expecting/wanting action) and fragments (e.g. very short sentences missing the subject) should generally be avoided. Here's a potential rewording if it helps: "In response to the growing Euroscepticism, on 23 January 2013, Cameron delivered his Bloomberg speech in London in which he promised an in–out referendum on EU membership if the Conservatives won a majority at the 2015 general election."

• Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Brexit subsection - is this content necessary here? I think the content is generally helpful but isn't this article by its nature just a fork of the main article Brexit? If a reader wants to learn more about Brexit itself, they can simply just click on the link to the parent article that's included in the lede. Also, the background section should only provide what's absolutely necessary for understanding the topic of this article (e.g. the progression/timeline of Brexit, not simply Brexit itself, which is what the parent article is about). Imo, I think it would make a lot of sense, and also be p beneficial, just to merge the entirety of this subsection into Brexit#Terminology_and_etymology, which also happens to be in quiet poor shape.

• I'd prefer to keep that paragraph, but, if the community think it's unneeded, then I'm happy to remove it. That said, I have copied it into the Brexit article too. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Personally don't feel too strongly about it but I'd still recommend opening a merge discussion or (and I think this is a much more efficient imo) just ping the past reviewers to this FLN and see what they think. Again, its not a major issue though so up to you how you want to go about it. Dan the Animator 05:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123 and MyCatIsAChonk: What are your opinions on this? Should the Brexit section of this article be removed, or is it relevant? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  IMO, this section increases understanding- because 'Brexit" is not linked to a wikitionary page in the lead, it makes sense to define is before the timeline. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I'm fine with it. It includes dates for when it entered usage, which is relevant for a timeline article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• The lasting impacts of Brexit on both the EU and the UK will be felt for many years. - reword this a bit (maybe replace with: Brexit has had lasting impacts on both the EU and UK.)

• Rewritten to "Brexit has had lasting impacts on both the EU and UK, and will do for many years." A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• with changing patterns largely explained by older Brexit-supporting voters dying and younger Remain supporters reaching voting age - reword this (possible rewording: with analysts attributing the changing patterns to the declining population of elderly Brexit-supporting voters and an increasing number of younger Remain supporters reaching voting age.)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• From 2022 onwards, opinion changed. - remove this (adds nothing imo) or integrate it into the next sentence

• Integrated into next sentence. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• most British voters regretted leaving the EU with many Leave voters having changed their mind - quantify "most" and "many" if possible. Doesn't have to be exact numbers (though numbers are better) but try to use more precise words (like "simple majority," "supermajority," etc.).

• I'd like to be more specific, but that sentence is summarising a couple of different polls, some of which show a majority of people regret Brexit, and others just a plurality. "Most" and "many" are the words used by the sources, e.g. "most voters think Brexit was a mistake" and "many of those who voted for Brexit in the 2016 referendum are having second thoughts". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm, I guess as a workaround maybe consider adding in an additional sentence from one of the more noteworthy polls and include the numbers for that. It's alright if you keep it as-is too though. Dan the Animator 05:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Rewritten. Let me know your thoughts. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Looks great, thanks A Thousand Doors! :) Dan the Animator 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• feeling that things had got worse since the referendum - replace "got" with "gotten"

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I only looked over the lede, background, and aftermath sections but I'll take a look at the main timeline part part a bit later if you want. Feel free to ping back when you've gone over my suggestions. Thanks! Dan the Animator 19:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Dantheanimator! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to get back to review the rest of the article as soon as I get the chance (I've been caught up with some off-wiki stuff recently) but hope the two follow-ups above help. Cheers, Dan the Animator 05:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• @A Thousand Doors: Here's the rest of my comments/suggestions. The article's in fantastic shape so most of the suggestions are very minor. Feel free to let me know what you think about the below and great job with the article! :) Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• critcises their lack of strategy for achieving European renegotiation fix spelling of criticises and reword the "achieving European renegotiation" part (maybe say "renegotiating the UK's EU membership" instead?) Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• threshold of support required, and are set to be placed remove comma

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• replace "e-mail" with "email"? Not sure having the hyphen is really necessary and the wikipage uses the unhyphenated version too. Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• to discuss and agree a collective approach for the future negotiations on Brexit add "on" after "agree" (e.g. "agree on a") and would recommend taking out "the" (so it would read as "agree on a collective approach for future negotiations on Brexit") Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• government publish a white paper on how the withdrawal agreement fix tense (publishes) Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Using a humble address, Labour table a motion fix tense (tables) Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• After the DUP come out in favour of the motion think it should be "comes out" Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• The EU and UK negotiating teams agree the draft text of the withdrawal add on ("agree on the") Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee, announces that he has received letters of no confidence in May from at least 48 Conservatives MPs, exceeding the threshold of 15% of the total. maybe clarify/elaborate here a bit? (is the "15% of the total" referring to 15% of all Conservative MPs or 15% of all MPs in Parliament (or something else)?) Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• From each of eight MPs, Bercow selects a Brexit plan that might win the support of the majority of the House of Commons. maybe clarify (is this referring to "each of the eight MPs' plans"?) Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Bercow announces his intention of resign as speaker of the house replace "of" with "to" Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Parliament prorogues (under 9 September) - expand this (mention that the Queen under Johnson's advice prorogued Parliament and that is was controversial); potential new sentence: In a controversial decision, the Queen prorogues Parliament on the advice of Johnson, intended to be in effect from some point between 9 and 12 September 2019 and last until the State Opening of Parliament on 14 October 2019. Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar release a joint statement agreeing "a pathway to a possible deal" add "on" after "agreeing" (agreeing on "a pathway) Dan the Animator 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks again, Dan! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  In case this is necessary: based on the above edits and the superb quality of the article, I support giving FL status. Congrats! :) Dan the Animator 23:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by Queen of Hearts

In the aftermath section, "Brexit has had lasting impacts on both the EU and UK, and will do for many years" is grammatically incorrect. ^Queenof_Hearts 00:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oops, thanks User:Queen of Hearts. Changed to "and will continue to for many years". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [13].

---

List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon

Nominator(s): Editør (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. The lead summarizes the content in the tables which have contemporary sources, except for the women's winners from 1976 and 1977 that are referenced with a 1990 source because I was unable to find sources from 1976/1977. Only the world best performance statement is not in the tables and is sourced separately. – Editør (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I was incomplete, for the women's winners from 1996/1999/2000 I also couldn't find contemporary sources, so I've used the results in their World Athletics profile as source. – Editør (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Per MOS:COLOR, you can't use colour alone to signify something, and certainly not two shades of the same colour which are almost indistinguishable from each other -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I've simplified the marking of the course record by merging the two markings. – Editør (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  However, I don't think the added boldface is much of an improvement, neither would be adding a column to add notes, so I'm open to suggestions. – Editør (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  The best thing to do would be to add a symbol, eg † or ‡ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm considering some options, also adding the CR abbreviation normally used for marathon course records. Meanwhile, I have another question similarly related to accessibility, is it okay today 'hide' the dates under the years with a tooltip? – Editør (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I've decided to remove the color markings altogether, because I believe the combination of color plus boldface gave undue visual weight to the course records and because I thought the addition of a symbol made the time listings look messy. Instead, I've added a narrow note column to mark the course records. – Editør (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  And I've also removed the tooltips (that were hiding the full dates) for accessibility reasons. – Editør (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Harrias – support

• The lead needs to be expanded to give better context; how far is the marathon? Where in Amsterdam is the race, has it always covered the same route? Why was the race cancelled in 1978 and 2020? Compare this to List of winners of the Boston Marathon or List of winners of the New York City Marathon.

  I've added the distance and explained the cancellations. The route has not always been the same, sometimes the finish was at Dam Square (recognisable by the buildings on the photo of Gerard Nijboer finishing in 1984) and other times in the Olympic Stadium (you can see the tracks on the photo of Eyerusalem Kuma finishing). This sort of information is certainly relevant to the marathon and I think it should be discussed in more detail in Amsterdam Marathon (I have already started working on this article), but for this list I hope that "road race (...) across the city of Amsterdam" will suffice. – Editør (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• The quality of the language in the lead needs to be improved, particularly to make the text flow. At the moment, it just reads like a series of bullet points.

  I've copyedited the text in an effort to improve its flow, and I will try to look at it some more later. – Editør (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've made some additional changes and would like to know if this is (in the direction of) what you were looking for. – Editør (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• The tables should have table headers, see MOS:DTT.

  I assume you meant captions here, which I have just added, and not headers. It seems a bit overcomplete now, so I am not convinced it is an improvement. – Editør (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  The article is titled "List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon", the section is titled "Men's winners", and the table is captioned "Men's winners of the Amsterdam Marathon". What do you think? – Editør (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• You're not lacking for width; might as well write "Course record" out in full, rather than abbreviate it.

  I disagree with this point about width, in smaller windows and on smaller screens the table rows already don't fit on a single line. – Editør (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  And CR is the common athletics abbreviation for a marathon course record, according to Athletics abbreviations#Records. – Editør (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've also mentioned the abbreviaton in the lead to further explain it. – Editør (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• The "Athlete" column should sort by surname.

  Changed. – Editør (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• The "Country" column doesn't need links to each country, per MOS:OVERLINK.

  In the lead I have only linked the country names once, but I don't think that would work as well in a sortable table. Some lists link all (like List of winners of the New York City Marathon) others don't (like List of winners of the Boston Marathon), so this suggests it is more something of preference. I think some country links are useful and for consistency I prefer that they are all linked. – Editør (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• The images all need alt text.

  Added. – Editør (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• According to the Amsterdam Marathon statistics (https://do.occdn.net/p/75/f/statistieken-am-word-23-ned-eng.pdf here) Marianne Nieuwenhuis was the female winner in 1979?

  I've found two sources from 1979 that rank Ria Harmens first and Marianne Nieuwenhuis second. The first source is a news report in Het Parool of 21 May 1979, you can see both names at bottom left of the page, but unfortunately the time of Harmens is not visible due to the fold of the scanned page. The second source is this result booklet from 1979, which I found on the website of the Stichting Atletiekerfgoed (Athletics Heritage Foundation), it lists the results of both runners on the last page. I've also found a 1990 article in Het Parool that lists Marianne Nieuwenhuis as winner, but I have no evidence that indicates the original reporting was wrong or the results were changed, and without further evidence I have made the assumption that some of the later sources have copied it incorrectly. – Editør (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Additional note: in the 1979 article in Het Parool, the overall rankings are given for Harmens and Nieuwenhuis, #199 and #204, maybe the way the women's top results were documented as part of a long result list has played an obfuscating role here. The layout of the PDF document you linked suggests it is an official document from the organisation, although the source location doesn't indicate who has published it. But seems odd that the organisation would list the wrong winner. – Editør (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  The article I linked came from the official marathon website. The ARRS also list Nieuwenhuis as the race winner: [14]. Without clarity on this issue, we can't really proceed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't want to rely on the organisation's all-time winner list, that's why I've made a point of finding as many contemporary sources for the winners as I could, but this doesn't seem to satisfy you. Do you have a suggestion of how to resolve this matter? – Editør (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  The only real resolution can be to carry out further research and find out which is correct. At the moment we have contemporary primary sources suggesting one winner, and non-contemporary primary and secondary sources supporting another. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 22:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  I will try to find out, but in this case I'm not sure how to carry out further research without doing OR. – Editør (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Personally, I would start off with OR, in this case probably emailing the organiser, to see if you can find out the reason for the discrepancy. From there it is easier to work backwards and find RS to support that information. While we can't use OR on Wikipedia, we can often use OR to help us search for the right information. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see, an approach that may work, but I'm not sure that contacting publishers, pointing out discrepancies between sources, and potentially influencing their content is the manner in which Wikipedia authors are supposed to work.

  Earlier you mentioned primary and secondary sources, which lead me to review WP:OR. In this context I will again describe the sources and their content and why I think that the 1979 women's winner is appropriately listed, given the available information.

Discussion of sources

I've found scans of the 1979 news article [15], which I believe is a contemporary secondary source, and scans of the 1979 results booklet [16], which I believe is a contemporary tertiary source. The news article gives the results for the three women in the 1979 Amsterdam Marathon with what I understand from the context to be their overall ranking:

• 199. Ria Harmens (time partially legible, ending in 4)
• 204. Marianne Nieuwenhuis (time partially legible, ending in 22.45)
• 215. Rina Kossen (time listed as 3.26.08)

The results booklet also contains results from 27 October 1979 ("27.10"), which indicates that it was published after the news article. And the booklet gives the results of five women in the 1979 Amsterdam Marathon, which indicates they've used a source separate from the news article for the list. Here are the first three:

• Ria Harmens (3.21.40)
• Marjan Nieuwenhuis (3.22.45)
• Quirina Kossen (3.26.18)

Both 1979 sources use different short and long forms of the first names and there are small differences in the times, but the order of the runners is constant which suggests to me that this is the most reliable of the information conveyed here.

However, this information is contradicted by the scan of the 1990 news article [17], which I believe is a non-contemporary tertiary source, the static web page of the ARRS last updated in 2017 [18] and the database of the ARRS last updated in 2023 [19], which I believe are a non-contemporary tertiary sources, and the pdf of the 2022/2023 all-time list [20], which I believe is a non-contemporary primary source. However all these non-contemporary sources only give the (winner's) name Marianne Nieuwenhuis and her time 3:22:45, but no information about other runners, so they all convey less information, i.e. are less specific, than the 1979 sources.

From the section WP:PSTS, I understand that secondary sources are generally preferred over primary or tertiary sources. And I think we agree that contemporary sources are generally preferred over non-contemporary sources because they are closer to a described event. I also think that more informative sources are generally preferred over less informative ones.

Following this logic:

• the 1979 news article (secondary) is to be preferred over the 1990 news article (tertiary)
• the 1979 news article (secondary) is to be preferred over the 2017/2023 webpage/database (tertiary)
• the 1979 news article (secondary) is to be preferred over the 2022/2023 all-time list (primary)
• the 1979 sources (more informative and contemporary) are to be preferred over the 1990–2023 sources (less informative and non-contemporary)

So it seems to me that the 1979 sources are to be preferred over the newer ones and that Ria Harmens should be listed as winner based on the available information. – Editør (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to explain why I believe the 1979 sources are to be preferred over the later sources. And I have just added a detailed note to the list that discusses the 1979 and later sources and acknowledges that they indicate different winners. I hope that this resolves the issue in a manner suitable to Wikipedia without having to do original research. – Editør (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@User:Harrias, I believe I have addressed all your comments and concerns about the list, do you now support the candidate? – Editør (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@User:Harrias, because I haven't heard back, I wanted to remind you of our discussion. – Editør (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

- Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I will respond to them above. – Editør (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this commenter has not responded in the last two months, but I believe I've adressed all the raised issues. – Editør (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support – sorry, for some reason I didn't see the pings for this page. I'm happy with the note that has been added to address the ambiguity I was concerned with. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe I didn't do the ping right, but I'm glad to hear you support the candidate! – Editør (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Z1720

• Reviewed the prose and had no concerns.
• I was a little iffy on the lack of inline citations in the lede. However, I think most of the information in the lede is cited in the article body and I didn't detect any information that wasn't. I'm OK with it but will understand if others are concerned and want them added.

  Yes, the lead summarizes the tables, so I believe most info is covered by the source references in the tables. Only the world best performance wasn't so I added an extra reference for that. – Editør (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Reviewed the images, had no concerns with copyright, captions or alt text
• Notes 1 and 2 do not have citations: recommend adding those after the notes (even though I know they are already in the table)

  I've added (duplicate) source references to the notes themselves. – Editør (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Recommend archiving the sources using IA Bot

  I will leave this to someone else if they think it is necessary. – Editør (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Great work. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and comments, I will reply to them above where appropriate. – Editør (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the reference appear reliable enough, and formatting looks to be okay throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [21].

---

1952 in spaceflight

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this article is about the year, 1952, in spaceflight. I did the head and the initial finalization of the table. Sotarkhu then did yeoman's work error-checking and revising it. Similar work got us FLC on Spaceflight before 1951 and 1951 in spaceflight, so this is the next article in queue! --Neopeius (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Strange—it looks like I nominated it back in 2021 but perhaps forgot to add it to the FLN page? --Neopeius (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like you created the nomination page but didn't actually put the talk page template or put it here? I'll delete that one and move this nomination. --PresN 14:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Dunno what happened there. Neopeius (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by SilverTiger:

• In 1952, all branches of the United States' military, often in partnership with civilian organizations, continued their program of sounding rocket research... wouldn't it be programs, plural? Since it sounds like each branch had its own program going on.

Fixed

• The entire first paragraph under Space exploration highlights#US Navy lacks references. And I think it could stand to be reworded to be easier to understand, and to make clearer why those changes were (if they were) important.
• ...in November 1952 that [development/construction of] the Atlas, potentially capable of delivering... Add as applicable.

Fixed ("development of")

• The last three entries in the October table seem to be missing information. Same for the second November entry.

No data to put in there.

• Would it be possible to center-align the "By rocket" bar graph legend under the graph itself? Right now it looks a little awkward.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, nor do I have the skills to do that—would you mind terribly? :)

That's the first pass. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Neopeius (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! This was an interesting, if brief, read, but I imagine it only gets more interesting from here on out. Though if years in spaceflight is an ongoing project, I'm impressed- you have quite a bit of work ahead on you. Support, and happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @SilverTiger12:! It is an ongoing project that I fell into rather by accident. I have done up through 1955 (this is the third to get the FAC treatment) and Sotarkhu has worked over the tables through 1957. I am in the middle of the article bits for 1956 as we speak (but keep getting side-tracked on projects like R-5 Pobeda. I also maintain the master timeline project page, which I'll update after this process. The timeline is pretty well handled from 2009 onwards, so this is a finite project... --Neopeius (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Balon Greyjoy

Will be back for future commenrts! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Woohoo! --Neopeius (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "all branches of the United States' military" I think this should be more specific, since it doesn't appear that the Marine Corps or Coast Guard had involvement

Ah, but you're forgetting the USPS' nascent space program... :) Changed to "several".

• "groundwork was laid for the launch of the first artificial satellite with the scheduling" Is there anything more concrete hear? Something like the relative increase in the amount of funding?'

Elaborated.

• "No new ballistic missiles were added to the arsenals of either the United States or the Soviet Union in 1952." I'm assuming this means no new models of ballistic missiles were added, rather than there were no new physical missiles?

Changed to "No new models of ballistic missile..."

• "the rocket crashed 4 miles (6.4 km) or 5 miles (8.0 km)" I changed this to "the rocket crashed 4 to 5 miles (6 to 8 km) downrange to the southeast" since it is a range and not discrete distances. Additionally, I reduced the significant figures in the conversions.

Thank you.

• The inflation conversions should have a date specified as to when it's referring. But I would also argue since the figures are being compared to each other and not to modern day, I don't think it's necessarily (and stylistically, I don't think it belongs)

Agreed—I thought the template would do it, but it's not that smart. I just got rid of the inflation conversions.

• "Air Forces's apparent lack of enthusiasm for the project" This should be attributed to someone (if nothing else, "Air Force leadership"), as it's not like the organization has a lack of enthusiasm.

I disagree, and the wording of the source is similar.

Not a deal breaker, but I don't like the personification of an organization. Source wording aside, it's the decision makers of an organization that dislike something.

• Change from the passive voice to the active voice for the R-5 and Redstone rockets.

How do you like now?

• "multitude of nations in such farflung regions as the Arctic and Antarctica" List which countries contribute, and I don't think "farflung" is necessary when the regions are listed

Rewrote the paragraph.

• "In part inspired by lectures he gave to the British Interplanetary Society in London the previous year, the University of Maryland's Fred Singer began espousing in both print and in public presentations the use of small artificial satellites to conduct scientific observations" This reads like Singer is inspired by himself?

I was paraphrasing what he said, but I have rewritten it. Hopefully, some yahoo doesn't come in and take out the 1951 reference since it didn't happen in 1952 (that happened on another article; the fellow had never heard of "context"...)

All I have so far! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Thanks so much! Will attend to shortly. --Neopeius (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Done! Sorry for the delay. I got summoned to the Talk page on the Space Race, and that turned into a rat's nest. --Neopeius (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Sorry for the delay (computer rebuild). I support! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Z1720

Image review - pass

• Suggest adding alt text to the image in the infobox, per MOS:ALT

I think I did it right.

Prose review:

• Suggest adding Template:Inflation to the article after the costs.
• I made some minor edits when I noticed things: feel free to revert.

"Half-again" means "one-and-a-half times" :) Fixed.

Support. No major concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --Neopeius (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Frostly

Support. I've made a few minor copy edits; feel free to undo. Frostly (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Is four supports enough? What should I do next? --Neopeius (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Strike that. I see we're still at two supports, waiting on the return of @Balon Greyjoy: and @SilverTiger12: --Neopeius (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I already supported a long time ago, check my last comment above. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Kerbyki

Support. This article is very thorough, meets Wikipedia quality standards, and is backed by reliable secondary sources. This topic, being from the early days of spaceflight, fills a void in space coverage; popular media tends to start with US crewed missions. --Kerbyki (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [22].

---

The Lovin' Spoonful discography

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 13:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this because I believe it meets the criteria for a featured list. This page was created by DPUH not long ago, and I have completely revised it over the last three months. This list is important because there is no reliable source out there which collects the information contained here. The one Spoonful member to have written an autobiography, Steve Boone, did not include a discography or appendix in his book. Richie Unterberger, a music writer who has written extensively on the history of folk rock, wrote in a 2018 article that there is an "absence of a quality, straight Lovin' Spoonful biography". I think that this discography and the band's main article can serve as a correction. Tkbrett (✉) 13:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan

• Since the band appears to have been inactive for quite some time now, shouldn't the opening sentence be in past tense: "The Lovin' Spoonful were an American folk rock band which was originally active between ..."? No other concerns and the article is very well-written. If you have some time, I would greatly appreciate your input on my own music-related FLC.--NØ 10:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the kind comments, MaranoFan. I would argue that the band ceased to exist in 1968, but since 1991, there has been a touring group called the Lovin' Spoonful. They released a live album in 1999 and they are still performing. I discussed it a bit in the second note on this article.

  The touring group is made up of the less-prominent members of the group – the drummer, the bassist and a guitarist who only played with the original '60s iteration for a year. The band's founders, John Sebastian and Zal Yanovsky – the former of whom wrote almost all of the music and was the group's de facto leader – opposed the idea from the start and neither of them ever joined the touring group. Even if I disagree with it though, I think it has to be written that the band is still active. The bass player's autobiography makes it clear that the touring group is legally allowed to use the name. In his biography of the band for AllMusic, the author Richie Unterberger counts the 1999 live album as a part of their discography. The other reality is that any time I have used was to describe the Lovin' Spoonful in other articles, IP editors show up in no time to change it to is. Tkbrett (✉) 14:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. There are other ways a band can stay active than just releasing albums. It's an easy support on everything else. Really great work with this!--NØ 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment re: the above (I aim to do a full review later) - it might be worth briefly mentioning the post-1991 incarnation somewhere in the lead, as currently there seems to be a contradiction between the use of the present tense in the first sentence and the statement further on that the band split up over 50 years ago..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, I now see it's covered by a footnote..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro

• Image needs some alt text

• Added.

• "four compilation albums and fourteen singles in the United States" → "four compilation albums, and fourteen singles in the United States" (American comma)

• I think it is fine either way, but I take your point that it is more of an American thing, so I threw it in there.

• "The band oriented their focus towards the singles market;" In the beginning or in general?

• They never really made the transition to making albums over singles, which is probably why they are more forgotten today. I added a bit more regarding this in the lead.

• I notice the lead has no info about their album performances. Is there a reason for that? Did they not perform well enough as the singles? (looking at the table now I can see they didn't but I'm still wondering why there's no mention in the lead)

• See above.

• Does Sebastian selling his catalog include his Lovin' Spoonful songs or like solo stuff?

• All of it. I clarified this.

• Tables look good
• [28] I know Richie Unterberger is a reliable journalist but is PleaseKillMe a reliable website?

• I think I can make a case for its inclusion over at the band's main article per WP:EXPERTSPS, since Unterberger is the biggest RS there is for folk rock, but because the citation is redundant here I have just removed it.

• Other sources look good to me.

That's all I got. :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much, zmbro. Tkbrett (✉) 15:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Almost forgot about this. Happy to support :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:18, 9 November 2023 (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.

• I think that[23] is all of them.

• 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. ! rowspan="2" style="width:10em;"|[[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]] becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" style="width:10em;"|[[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, like "Peak chart positions", then use !scope=colgroup instead. You have colscopes on most columns, but not all.

• Done.

• 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 look fine here, but note that if the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead of just !scope=row.

• Done.

• 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 21:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, I believe I got it all. Tkbrett (✉) 00:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

Support This discography is well-written/organized, comprehensive, and extensively referenced with high quality sources. It easily meets the FL criteria and is another addition to Tkbrett's fine work on several Loving Spoonful GAs. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Reference reliability looks okay across the board. There is a small formatting issue to point out: the ISBNs have multiple different styles. The MoS seems to favor the 13-digit ones with hyphens, which are the majority here, but there are a few stragglers. If needed, I've always found this helpful for converting these numbers, and for showing where the hyphens are meant to go. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Giants2008. ISBN was 10 digits until 2007, so the standard I applied was using 10-digit ISBNs for books published from 1970–2006 and the 13-digit format for 2007–present. For consistency, I have just converted everything to the 13-digit format. Tkbrett (✉) 13:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• The lone photo used in the article has an appropriate free license, caption and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [24].

---

List of Black Singles number ones of 1983

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's the latest offering in this series. In this year, or at least in the first half, it was all about MJ..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Not until 1994 would another song spend as long atop the chart. -- since this is mentioned, maybe it is worth mentioning the song? or perhaps maybe saying it was tied by that song, or the record was broken by that song (whichever applies)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Could not find any fault. Great job as usual. A history-making year this was! Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• Image review - pass: The images are all appropriately licensed.
• Source review - pass: Thriller could be italicized in the title of ref 7 to match ref 5. All sources used are reliable and formatting is consistent.
• "Gaye's track was replaced at number one in the issue dated January 15" - Just "the track" should work since it is the only song mentioned in the paragraph until this sentence.
• "It was the first of three number ones for Jackson in the first half of the year" - Maybe "the latter" instead of "it" here since two songs are alluded to in the preceding sentence.
• "regarded as the worldwide best-selling album of all time" - Since the sales figures are factual, do we need to say "regarded"?
• "Jackson's "Billie Jean" and "Beat It" also topped Billboard's pop singles chart" - "Jackson's" could be removed since these are already mentioned as his songs earlier.
• That sentence could be worded as ""Billie Jean", "Beat It", and Lionel Richie's "All Night Long (All Night)" also topped Billboard's pop singles chart, the Hot 100" after Jackson's name is eliminated, for simplification.
• That's it! Really great work on this series as usual.--NØ 22:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: - thanks! All done apart from point 5 - I would prefer to keep "regarded as", as I don't think that sales figures, especially those from past decades and certain territories, are 100% as clear cut as "factual" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support--NØ 09:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a quick comment on this part, (The track has been included on various lists of the greatest songs of all time). I would repeat the song title, "Billie Jean", to avoid any potential confusion as the previous sentence is about "Bump n' Grind".
• I have a quick question about "Juicy Fruit". Since the lead mentions further details on Thriller and "Billie Jean" (i.e. being the worldwide best-selling album of all time and one of the greatest songs of all times), would it be worth briefly mentioning just how much "Juicy Fruit" has been sampled? This source from Sound on Sound calls it "one of the most sampled songs in music history". Obviously, further sources would be needed to substantiate that, but I was curious if that's worth a brief mention?
• I have a question about this part, (also topped Billboard's pop singles chart, the Hot 100). Isn't the Hot 100 chart more of a general chart and not just a pop-specific one? After all, the longest-running/best-selling single of 2023 is a country song (i.e. "Last Night"). Is it that the Hot 100 was considered a pop chart at the time (i.e. in 1983)?
• The image captions should be consistent on whether or not they include the year that the photo was taken.

Wonderful work as always. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. I hope you are having a wonderful end of the year. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - thanks for your review, all done. My understanding re: the Hot 100 (and admittedly I have only seen this mentioned in sources which are probably unreliable, but I can believe it) is that in the 80s songs were only eligible for the Hot 100 if they were being played on pop music radio and the airplay element was weighted towards plays on those stations, hence how you sometimes saw a song that was #1 in R&B but only got to, like, #80 on the Hot 100, or in some cases didn't even enter it at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. Your explanation about the Hot 100 makes sense to me. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Support. You make it very difficult to find things to criticize. I'm going to have to start getting to these sooner just to get credit for the source reviews lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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