Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2023

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, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [1].

---

List of members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, 2017–2021

Nominator(s): Dajasj (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this because it gives a quick overview of the parliamentary term. The introduction gives an overview of the parliamentary groups and some other relevant context, including a beautiful image made by Ætoms. It then gives a simple overview of all members (inspired by Tristan Surtel). It is sortable, so one can simply check who were part of a parliamentary group, or who was the first to leave that term. I believe it is much less chaotic than the version over at nl:Samenstelling Tweede Kamer 2017-2021. It does not go into much detail (such as birthdate etc.), as that can be found on the individual pages. It does however provide some relevant details in the notes, such as why a member left the House. I hope to use this format for similar lists in the future. O, and I also believe it meets the criteria ;) Thanks for considering this nomination. Dajasj (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "194 individuals served as representatives in House of Representatives," => "194 individuals served as representatives in the House of Representatives,"
• "150 members were elected" - any way to reword so the sentence doesn't start with a number written as digits? While not prohibited, it doesn't quite look right IMO
• Merge the second and third paragraphs of the lead
• "was formed from a coalition of People's Party for Freedom and Democracy" => "was formed from a coalition of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy"
• "The opposition consisted of Party for Freedom" => "The opposition consisted of the Party for Freedom"
• "During the term, three members switched their parliamentary group affiliation, changing the party composition of the House of Representatives. (Resignations generally do not affect the balance of power, as replacements are appointed from the party list.)" => "During the term, three members switched their parliamentary group affiliation, changing the party composition of the House of Representatives (resignations generally do not affect the balance of power, as replacements are appointed from the party list.)."
• "in this list therefor" - "therefore" is spelt wrongly
• Something seems to be up with Femke Merel van Kooten-Arissen - initially she has three rows against her name, but if you re-sort the table, a fourth row appears.....?
• "Left because he did no have enough energy" => "Left because he did not have enough energy"
• "Left after she felt she didn't get enough support" => "Left after she felt she did not get enough support"
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for taking the time reviewing this page! I'll fix these points asap. As for Femke Merel van Kooten Arissen, there should be four rows. I had fixed on desktop, but I see there are still problems on mobile at least. There should be a row combining her membership of PvdD with her second time in office... Dajasj (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe the Femke issue is something to do with a conflict between all the different rowspans (if you look at the article when it first opens, without any re-sorting, only one row for PvdD is displayed when I think you intend there to be two). I think the easiest way to fix it might be to have a completely separate row for her PvdD membership from 4 February '19 to 16 July '19.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought I had copied the solution, but apparently I didn't. My last change should've fixed it :) Dajasj (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that almost all the changes above have been made, but I still believe the very short second and third paragraphs of the lead should be merged -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I also have to look at your second point. Will do that today Dajasj (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Quick question, why did you remove the brackets around "temporarily", because after resignation it is not temporary? :) Dajasj (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Because they aren't needed. "They (temporarily) replaced" and "They temporarily replaced" mean exactly the same thing and it reads more naturally without the brackets -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support – This has come so far since I last saw it during the peer review process in March. Kudos. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 13:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, in particular for your feedback :) Quick question about your latest change, I'm worried people might interpret appointed as in: someone can appoint a random person as (temporary) replacement. Which is sometimes the case in the US when a Senator leaves and a Governor gets to appoint someone, right? Because in the NL, it's always the next one on the list (which is explained later in the introduction). But if this is not how other people interpret appointed, then its fine :) Dajasj (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  For me, ‘appointment’ is a neutral term with no implications of procedure aside from not elected, so I don’t think we’re at risk of misleading readers who don’t reach the parenthetical in the third paragraph (which, btw, has an extraneous full stop). Cheers —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks :) Dajasj (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

FOARP

• General comment: this article is sourced entirely to parlement.com. Checking on the "About" page of their website, I see that this is an independent, unofficial initiative funded by the Montesquieu Institute of Maastricht University. I don't see any immediate reason to doubt the accuracy of the information they present, but I would have liked to see more than one source used especially to confirm some of the information given in the lead section.
• "194 individuals served as representatives in the House of Representatives, the 150-seat lower house of the States-General of the Netherlands" - I think I know the answer (these are people who retired/left for some other reason and were replaced, right?) but it is not given and a natural question for our audience to ask - how were there 44 more people serving as representatives than seats? I think the addition of just a few words about members being replaced would cover this.
• "Khadija Arib, who had been elected Speaker of the House in 2016, continued serving in that capacity for the duration of this period." - since this is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, we should probably have a source here. Perhaps this is an opportunity to introduce a different source? Also, is "speaker" actually how her title is translated in English? I see the term "Chair" used in this English-language piece and "president" used in this article and this article on the official website of the parliament. Our article on the topic of her election in 2016 doesn't cite any English-language sources so there is a potential translation issue here.
• "resignations generally do not affect the balance of power, as replacements are appointed from the party list" - It would probably be a good idea to cite a reference here as to how the Dutch House of Representatives works.
• "All members are sworn in at the start of the term, even if they are not new" - probably a good idea to cite a source here.
• That's all I've got for now. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll request a move for Speaker later today, but apparently in the past Speaker was used on official websites (see Talk:Speaker_of_the_House_of_Representatives_(Netherlands)). Dajasj (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, possible there's just inconsistent usage. Maybe just ask the Netherlands Wikiproject what they think the correct translation is before going through an RM discussion? FOARP (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give feedback! I think I addressed all other points now as well. Unfortunately, I had to use parlement.com another time for the resignations explanations, because I could not find a better source. Dajasj (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK to support from here. Like I said I don't doubt that parlement.com is an accurate source, but using more than one source helps re-affirm the notability of the article (not that I doubt it is notable) and gives a bit of insurance against linkrot. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the problem is that there are no other sources that systematically describe the information. I would have to search for individual news articles for every person. Btw, all links are archived so linkrot shouldn't be an issue. Dajasj (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review – Pending

Much of this was done by FOARP above, but here is a formal source review.

Formatting

• The first seven sources (all the non parlement.com ones) need a language=dutch like the rest
• The above seven would also benefit from trans-title=
• Ref 5 missing author & date
• Ref 4 missing access-date, newspaper and date
• ref 3 missing author, date and newspaper
• ref 2 missing publisher
• ref 7 missing publisher

Reliability

• Addressed above by FOARP

Verifiability

• Spotchecked a few to no issues. Aza24 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I fixed all the points, thanks :) Dajasj (talk) 18:23, 13 July 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. ! Name becomes !scope=col | Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | {{sortname|Roy van|Aalst}} becomes !scope=row | {{sortname|Roy van|Aalst}}. 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 18:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Has been added, thanks for bringing this to my attention! :) Dajasj (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Image review – The lone image used in the article looks to have an appropriate free license. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 30 July 2023 (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, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Best Selling Soul Singles number ones of 1971

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's #29 in this series. In this particular year, Marvin Gaye was the top performer, taking three singles to number one from an album which many have called one of the best of all time. As ever, feedback will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• A suggestion for the Denise LaSalle image caption, perhaps remove pictured as it appears she's the only one shown in the image.
• As for Sly Stone, perhaps indicate the year the photo was from instead of later life
• That's all from me. Nothing to quibble on prose. Nice work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - I added dates to both captions. I left "pictured" in the first as it wouldn't make grammatical sense otherwise...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• Very minor nitpicky comment about the sentence "It was one of three of 1971's number ones to also top ...", would it be possible to avoid the repetition of "of" by using something like "It was one of three 1971 number ones", "It was one of 1971's three number ones" or "It was among three number ones in 1971"?--NØ 07:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: - adjusted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 07:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• Is "then returned to number one for one further week" grammatical without an 'and' before 'then'?
  • Done
• Per WP:WOULDCHUCK: "'Groove Me' was Floyd's first number one but would prove to be" --> "'Groove Me' was Floyd's first number one but proved to be"
  • Done
• Ditto "his 1971 number one would prove to be his only chart-topping single"
  • Done
• Is it usual to link "the" in "the Persuaders, and the Chi-Lites". It looks a bit weird to me, but it is part of their names....
  • Done
• On a completely different note, that lead image may be my favorite of any I've seen on your lists (so I won't complain about Marvin not getting his rightful share of the spotlight).
  • It's a great image, isn't it? I particularly like how the middle Pip is so joyfully getting down. BTW for good measure I added an image of Marvin :-)

That's all. ~ HAL333 18:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• @AL333: - thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 19:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support--金色黎明 (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review - BennyOnTheLoose

• Sources are all appropriate and in line with other featured lists in the series.
• Richie Unterberger could be wikilinked.
• I think David Katz can be wikilinked to David Katz (author) but only if you're confident it's the same person.
• I checked the sources for "regarded by many critics as one of the greatest albums of all time" and IMO they support that statement.
• For the Rolling Stone link, this is more direct and would save readers having to navigate the RS list; but I think that the 2020 RS list, which has What's Going On as number one would be a better reference than the earlier list.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: - thanks - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Support - I can't see anything else. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Is there a reason why this set of articles doesn't use {{abbr|Ref.|References}} in the table heading? Other than that I see no issues with this article. Good job as always.

-- EN-Jungwon 16:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• • @EN-Jungwon: - fixed now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- EN-Jungwon 15:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 (verification check & other comments)

• Jean Knight was number 1 only in July, not August.
  • Her last week at number 1 extended into August but I have reworded nonetheless -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Unterberger doesn't say (Do The) Push and Pull (Part 1) was Thomas's first number one, only that it was one of his songs to reach at least #5. Citation needed here.
  • The Whitburn ref at the end of the sentence covers this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  In that case, could Whitburn 1988 be reused here? It currently looks like Unterberger is only covering that sentence as Whitburn 1988 is not cited until the following sentence. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MrLinkinPark333: - done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the quick fixes! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Also, I suggest rewording "commercial peak" as this copies the phrase used by Unterberger.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• 1971 Hot 100 doesn't specify it's an all-genre chart. This part should either be removed or additionally cited.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• June 5th was Want Ads, not Bridge Over Troubled Water
• June 19th was Bridge Over Troubled Water, not Want Ads
  • Fixed above two, no idea what happened there -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Neither Hot Pants or Make It Funky specify they are Part 1 songs. (Part 1) should either be removed from each or have another source state it was a Part 1 song like Don't Knock My Love.
• Also, Hot Pants is listed as Hot Pants (She Got To Use What She Got, To Get What She Want) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Titles are now as per Whitburn (with appropriate ref), which matches what was printed in physical Billboard magazines at the time (per Google Books) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• @MrLinkinPark333: - thanks, most fixed, will resolve the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @MrLinkinPark333: - now all done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

    @ChrisTheDude: Left a question about (Do The) Push and Pull (Part 1). The rest has been resolved. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Image review – All photos have appropriate free licensing and alt text. Everything looks good in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 30 July 2023 (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, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [3].

---

List of UK Open Billiards Championship winners

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This is probably the most complete list of UK Open Billiards Championship winners and finals available. The Championship used to attract decent amounts of press in the 1930s, but, like the game of English billiards itself, it has never again reached those giddy heights in terms of popularity. Extracts from the offline sources can be provided to any reviewers enthusiastic enough to want them. Thanks in advance for any comments to help improve this list. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there an appropriate wikilink to cover what "150-up" (and similar in the notes) is?

• I've added slightly to the intro text, and reworded the notes. Hopefully an improvement. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• If I sort the table on any other column and then re-sort on date, January 1988 comes after November 1988 for some reason

• I think I've fixed the sorting now, but let me know if not. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude; I've responded above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by EnthusiastWorld37

• Australia doesn't necessarily need to be linked
• "and it was not contested again until 1952.[7][6]" - refs in numerical order, please
• "reinstituted the tournament as an open event in 2015.[8][2]" - same issue as above
• Perhaps you can mention how many players have won the championship in total in the third paragraph of the lead?
• "Causier has taken three titles, and the only other players to have won the title more than once are two-time champions Williams, Robby Foldvari, and Roxton Chapman." - try and replace the word in bold with an equivalent word to avoid repetition of the same word
• There is a typing error in the alt text of the third picture in the finals section, namely "A large conferene centre" which is highlighted in bold

EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. I've amended the article - let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support — EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by MyCatIsAChonk

See that some more supports may be needed, happy to review!

• File:Tom Newman 1930.jpg - needs US tag
• Remove WL on the publishers in citations 1 and 2, because the publishers aren't linked in any other citations
• Change header in the last column to Ref(s), since some cells have multiple

That's all from me, very high quality article already. Nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks, MyCatIsAChonk. I've amended the article per the second and third points. For the image, I've added Template:PD-1996, which I think is appropriate, after looking at https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-157483350 (the page about the collection the original image come from). Please let me know if this needs amending. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support - All good now, PD-1996 is appropriate. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:33, 24 July 2023 (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, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [4].

---

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

Nominator(s): KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because Harry Kane has always been one of my favourite players to watch and I would feel very honoured to get this list there. I have tons of experience working on other international goals lists, and I have been waiting for him to become England's all-time record goalscorer so this list could be created and expanded upon. Please let me know what I should change in this list article. Thank you. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Could make the lead image larger (or use a landscape one if one exists). At present it looks a bit lost in amongst all the text
• "Kane surpassed England's second all-time top goalscorer" - I would say "Kane surpassed England's second-top goalscorer of all time" or ""Kane surpassed England's second-highest goalscorer of all time"" works better. Present wording makes it sound like Charlton was the second player to be all-time top scorer
• "having equalled it" - as Charlton (rather than his record) was the object of the previous clause, this means you are referring to Charlton as "it". Suggest changing to "having equalled his tally"
• "Kane made his debut for England in a 4–0 home win over Lithuania, replacing Wayne Rooney in the second half, and scoring just 80 seconds later" - Seems a bit jarring to find this at the end of the paragraph after all the talk about the records he equalled/beat. I would suggest putting it before all that (so essentially after "since 2018")
• Also, lose the comma after "second half"
• "to seal the team's trip to Russia and became England captain" - I misread this as "to seal the team's trip to Russia and become England captain", as if scoring the goals made him captain. I would suggest moving the bit about his becoming captain into the next sentence, which would become "Kane became captain of England for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, where he led them......"
• "to fire the team top of their group" - a bit tabloid journalese-y. Suggest "to help the team win their group"
• Use of words vs digits for numbers under 10 is a bit inconsistent. You have "he scored 3 goals in 4 appearances to help England qualify for the tournament" but then later you have "During UEFA Euro 2020, Kane scored four goals"
• "England topped their qualifying group yet again" => "England topped their qualifying group again"
• "win over Panama at 2018 FIFA World Cup" => "win over Panama at the 2018 FIFA World Cup"
• "which was also coincidentally England's 1000th ever fixture" - don't really see how this was a coincidence, so I would lose that word
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Changed the prose around your suggestions, but I moved the Kane debut goal sentence to after the opening sentence because I think it fits there more than after the second sentence. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support -- Idiosincrático (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Soccerway is a statistics website for the gambling sector, it should be used sparingly as a source. It would be better to switch over those citations that actually discuss the goals like BBC. Like on List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney.
• Use nowrap on #dates. Govvy (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy: Removed Soccerway citations and added {{dts}} to the dates in the tables. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Had another read through, looks all good now. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

FOARP

• Notability I think is passed, on the BBC and DT articles about Kane's goals exceeding Rooney's/Charlton's. Govvy handled the other sourcing issues.
• Picture licencing checks out in as much as I am able to confirm it. Surprisingly generous of Soccer.ru to CC licence their photos to be frank.
• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 07:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:33, 24 July 2023 (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, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [5].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Kyla

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

With my earlier nomination gaining at least three supports and a source review completed, here's another list of awards and nominations of a Filipino personality. This time it's from singer Kyla, who first came to prominence back in 2000, and whose R&B and soul sound helped usher the genres popularity into Filipino music, earning many accolades for her contributions. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a clarification question about this part, (after appearing in the television talent show Metropop Star Search in 1997). What do you mean by "appearing in"? It seems like she was a contestant, but this should be clarified more explicitly in the prose. Was she a winner, finalist, etc.? I think some brief clarification would be better here than the current wording, which I find too vague.

I have revised and clarified that she appeared as a finalist.

• For this part, (Kyla's third effort), I would avoid the word "effort" in this context as I just think that it looks rather off.

I have used studio album in this context instead.

• There are two points in the lead that "while" is used as a transition. This wording is often used as a way to either contrast two different concepts or discussing things happening at the same time and since neither is the case in these two instance, I would encourage you to use different word choices for both.

A silly mistake of its use on my part. Revised to avoid confusion

• For the Google Books citations, you should use the page numbers and mark them as coming from Google Books.

Added "via" parameter in the citations.

That should be everything, but I will re-read the list sometime tomorrow. I hope these comments are helpful. Best of luck with this FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking this review Aoba47. Really appreciate it. I have addressed your comments and made the changes. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support Aoba47. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "In 2005, Kyla and Jerome John Hughes released [....] and teamed with Jay R on the main theme of the comedy drama Say That You Love Me" - the both teamed with Jay R....?
• "from her eight studio album" => "from her eighth studio album"
• "which won Best Rock Video at 2013 Myx Music Awards" => "which won Best Rock Video at the 2013 Myx Music Awards"
• "won competition's the top honor" => "won the competition's top honor"
• That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review ChrisTheDude, and for catching these omissions and silly mistakes. Above comments have been addressed. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Filipino singer Kyla has received numerous awards and nominations for her contributions in music." ---> "Filipino singer Kyla has received numerous awards and nominations for her contributions to music."
• "She rose to prominence after appearing as a finalist in the television talent show Metropop Star Search in 1997." --> "She rose to prominence after appearing as a finalist on the television talent show Metropop Star Search in 1997"
• "She signed a record deal with EMI Philippines and worked with producer Chito Ilacad and songwriter Arnie Mendaros for her debut studio album Way to Your Heart, which was released in 2000." ----> "She signed a record deal with EMI Philippines and worked with producer Chito Ilacad and songwriter Arnie Mendaros on her debut studio album Way to Your Heart, which was released in 2000."
• "Kyla was a recipient of Best New Artist accolades at the Awit Awards, Aliw Awards, and MTV Pilipinas Music Awards." ----> "Kyla has received Best New Artist accolades at the Awit Awards, Aliw Awards, and MTV Pilipinas Music Awards. "
• "The same year, she headlined the Not Just Your Ordinary Girl concert at the Araneta Coliseum in support of the album." ---> "The same year, she headlined the Not Just Your Ordinary Girl concert at the Araneta Coliseum to support the album."
• "Kyla released a cover of the 1989 ballad "Love Will Lead You Back", from her tribute album Heartfelt (2007). ---> "Kyla released a cover of the 1989 ballad "Love Will Lead You Back" from her tribute album Heartfelt (2007)." (remove comma)

Otherwise good. --TheUzbek (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your review TheUzbek. All comments actioned. Let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Pseud 14: Support If you have any spare time, please review my FL nom. --TheUzbek (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your support TheUzbek. I'll have a look at your FLC in this week. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

NØ

I see this FLC has already had comments from some very capable hands. I've still done my due diligence as a reviewer and given this a customary read. Here are my comments:

• "the romantic drama Let the Love Begin" - Can we say "the romantic drama film Let the Love Begin"?
• "The single received three nominations at the 2015 Awit Awards" - I don't like "the single" as wording variation in general so can we go with "the song"?
• "tribute album Heartfelt" - Do we need the wikilink on "tribute album"? Seems like something most readers might be familiar with and it's a MOS:SOB.

That's it from me. Incredible work!--NØ 20:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review MaranoFan. All comments have been actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review

I will try not to screw this up.

Version reviewed

Formatting

• fn 12: List of programs previously broadcast by GMA Network has "GMA Network News" in italics, but here it's not... which is it?

As a matter of consistency with other FLs and FAs, I use the "publisher" parameter for network news organizations i.e. GMA Network News, ABS-CBNnews.com, or ABS-CBN Entertainment. (similar to ABC News, CBS News)

• fn 47: Forgive me for my ignorance, but why is it "Myx Philippines"? Isn't the channel already Filipino?

Changed to Myx

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, be consistent with capitalisation in citation titles (either all title-case (refer to MOS:5LETTER) or sentence-case)

Believe all should be in sentence case now (proper names like name of awards organizations/ceremony is capitalized)

Reliability

• What makes Maxi-Media International a high-quality reliable source?

This actually came up in another source review where this citation was used as a replacement for a non-high quality source. Maxi Media is a production company, more or less the Philippine equivalent of Live Nation, that produces shows/live events. They also used to maintain a site which issues news articles and press releases.

Verifiability

• fn 10: clear
• fn 12: clear
• fn 26: clear
• fn 35: supports that she placed 3rd, not 2nd?

I believe placements other than Best Song, have been referred to as runner-ups (1st runner-up, 2nd runner-up, so on) At least in the context of how the tables in FLs have been referred to 2nd or 3rd place finishes.

• fn 42: clear
• fn 56: clear

Also, unrelated to the sources, but is there a reason Not Just Your Ordinary Girl isn't in quote marks or italics for the Aliw Awards?

Not Just Your Ordinary Girl is the name of the concert in support of Kyla's album. The Aliw Awards bestows recognition to live productions/live entertainment.

Overall, mostly very minor concerns. Ping me in your replies! Pamzeis (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the source review Pamzeis. All comments addressed. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think that's pass from me! Apologies for some pretty nitpicky comments. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• No need to apologize and thanks for the thorough source review Pamzeis. I'll be happy to take a look at your FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 17:33, 24 July 2023 (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, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [6].

---

List of awards and nominations received by John Oliver

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oliver's work on Last Week Tonight has influenced US culture, law, and sewer plants; so, he's received many awards. My first FLC, and look forward to everyone's comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: gotta say I'm confused by this article. First off, I randomly doublechecked its claim that Last Week Tonight with John Oliver won the 2015 Critics' Choice Television Award for Best Talk Show. It didn't, the Daily Show won. Second, even if that were a mistake, the cited source doesn't credit John Oliver the person at all for the nomination, so why is it listed here. Picking another random example: the Daily Show in 2012. Why is Oliver credited with a WGA nom not a Critics' Choice nom?

The article was completely overhauled yesterday, and has been submitted to FLC too hastily. The Critics Choice error above, for example, didn't exist in yesterday's version of the article.—indopug (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Indopug: I did not notice the error regarding the Critics Choice Awards, must've been lost when I converted it to a table. I've spotchecked the whole article to ensure everything is good, and fixed things appropriately- it seems the only change to wins had to be regarding the Critics Choice Awards.

To address the criteria for listing: any award received by just Last Week Tonight or The Daily Show during his involvement with it is listed on his page, but awards received by specific directors/producers are not listed.

As for the last comment on crediting, I'm not completely sure what you mean, I apologize. If you're referring to the 2016 WGA nom for The Daily Show, Oliver's name is listed in the source. Lastly, the reason for the haste is because most of the overhaul was completed in my sandbox, and I just pasted it into the article. Thank you for your interest in the article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Indopug about the nominations. This isn't a list of awards for Last Week Tonight; it's a list of awards for Oliver. (I raised the issues at an earlier FLC, and even with the rules being cited for the Golden Globes in that case, I wasn't super convinced the award should have been included. These cases seem even weaker.) If he's not being recognized specifically in the nomination, I would exclude him per WP:OR. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"any award received by just Last Week Tonight or The Daily Show during his involvement with it is listed on his page"—Shouldn't you include The Daily Show for 2015 Critics Choice because (1) he was involved and (2) the source says it was given to the show and not to a specific person. Similarly, why not list the "best comedy" noms season 1 and 2 of Community received? He was once a guest on Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, should he be credited here with any awards that season won?

I'm asking these questions to say what RunningTiger123 has already said: you criteria is too vague as to which of his work is included here.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Indopug and RunningTiger123: I see your points, and thanks for clarifying that for me. I've pruned the table of any awards for shows, unless Oliver's name is specifically credited in the source. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Indopug, I've implemented the changes suggested; would you consider re-reviewing? I would be very grateful, and I greatly appreciate your comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose out. I'll try to revisit with a detailed review over the weekend.—indopug (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Indopug, checking in. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Indopug, gentle reminder about this nom- it's totally ok if you don't want to review, just checking in. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Infobox totals need to be updated. Also, note that all wins should be counted as nominations – for instance, Oliver has 1 win and 1 nomination for the Grammy Awards.
• All cases of "The Daily Show..." should sort by "Daily", not "The"
• For "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents Earth (The Audiobook)", don't capitalize "with"
• Heading for "Notes and References" should be "Notes and references"
• Per MOS:LAYOUTEL, use a bullet for the external link
• Awards from the Producers Guild of America have specific nominees and should be included for Oliver

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @RunningTiger123, thanks for your comments! I think I've addressed everything- just to note, for your second bullet point, I acknowledge that but didn't see anywhere on the article where that needed to be fixed other than the 'See also' section; was there a specific spot you were referring to? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the table is sortable, the cells for The Daily Show need a different sort key. You can set a sort key using data-sort-value="<insert sort key here>". See WP:SORT for more. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 Ah, I see then- it's been fixed! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "John Oliver is an British" - "an British"....?
• Think that's it :=) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, fixed, thanks for your comment! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Source review

I will try not to screw this up.

Version reviewed

Formatting

• fn 2: Fix MOS:QINQ issue
• fn 3: New York Observer → The New York Observer
• fn 4: I believe The Kennedy Centre is a publisher, not a work (so it shouldn't be italicised)
• fn 5: TIME → Time
• fn 5, 8: mark as |url-access=limited
  • Fixed above five comments. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Critics Choice Association, National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Grammy Awards, Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, MTV and Writers Guild of America should not be italicised
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, italicise titles of works in citation titles
• Also per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, make sure citation titles are all in title-case (refer to MOS:5LETTER) or sentence-case
  • Think I addressed the above three for every citation, let me know you spot one I missed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliability

• fn 2: per WP:SALON.COM, there is no consensus on Salon's reliability. I would recommend removing it in an FL.
  • Replaced with The Hollywood Reporter. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability

This is my least favourite part. If I don't do it by tomorrow, drop a ping because otherwise I will procrastinate forevermore (I mean, I might still wander off but a ping makes it less likely). Pamzeis (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The preceding comment and this made me laugh- will do. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't make people laugh often so I appreciate that. Anyways, spotchecks (Version reviewed):

• Note: there are certain sources I can not access at the moment so I will AGF on those
• fn 1 & 4 support: "and soon after, HBO announced Oliver would receive his own talk show. Since 2014, he has hosted Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, for which he is best known." — I can't seem to find the bit that supports "soon after, HBO announced" or "since 2014". Could you clarify where in which article?
  • The citations there are supporting the claim that he's best known for Last Week Tonight. As I understood it, the rest doesn't need to be cited because it's a lead paragraph, but I can see how that'd be confusing- regardless, added citations for the rest. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Is there a reason there's no "work" for the Critics' Choice and MTV Awards? Because they seem to be nominating his work on Last Week Tonight and stuff.
  • The awards from those organizations were for Oliver himself as a host- see the statement right under the header, "Awards, honours, or nominations for Oliver himself are indicated with a hyphen (—)." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Also, "Additionally, Oliver co-hosted the satirical" until "2019 remake of The Lion King" is unsourced?
  • I didn't think it needed to be because it's a lead- added citations. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be it. Ping me in your replies! Pamzeis (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Pamzeis: Think I've addressed everything, thank you very much for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Everything seems fine now! Passing the source review. Pamzeis (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

Not much to say from me, looks good. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, I've addressed your comments. Best of luck in the WikiCup! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• I published the changes suggested by the "Fix sources" script; I think the only actual effect was to add the hyphen into Chicago Sun-Times.
• Any reason why three publications have an ISSN mentioned, but others don't?
  • Likely added by citation bot- removed ISSNs for consistency
• It's not a requirement for a featured list, as far as I know, but ALT text could be added for the image per MOS:ALT.
  • Added
• Looking at MOS:CURRENT, I wonder whether "for which he is best known" should be reworded. (I'm not sure that the sources cited explicitly support this anyway, but I'm happy to be pointed to the relevant text.)
  • Cut statement and citations connected to it

• Support I couldn't see anything else. Good luck for the WikiCup to you too! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 17:33, 24 July 2023 (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, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [7].

---

List of pilosans

Nominator(s): PresN 00:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Number 29 in our series of animal FLC finds us with the last single-list order of mammals: the species of the order Pilosa, aka the anteaters and sloths. It's a tidy little list of 12 South and Central American animals, which will likely be familiar to reviewers (at least in the two general groupings, if not individual species. As always, the list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Unfortunately (for me), while this is the last of the "small" orders, and the 14th of 18 large enough to have a dedicated list, the last four orders represent half of the mammal families, and three quarters of the species. Turns out there's a ton of shrews (400 species), primates (500), bats (1300), and especially rodents (2300!), so... I'll be doing this for a long while. In the meantime, thanks for reviewing this list! --PresN 00:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Review by SilverTiger

• Nice to see the next entry of mammal lists! I admire your dedication to going through even the specious primates, bats, and rodents... each of those have quite a few families beneath each order. But re-focusing on this list...
• "The twelve extant species of Pilosa are divided into two suborders, Folivora,.." -> "The twelve extant species of Pilosa are divided into two suborders: Folivora,.."

• "Vermilingua also contains two species:.." er, I think you mean two families here.

• "Dozens of extinct prehistoric Pilosa species.." -> "Dozens of extinct prehistoric pilosan species.."

• For the pygmy three-toed sloth, would it be at all possible to get a map with one of those zoom-in squares that actually shows the tiny island I assume the species inhabits?

Overall, this is very good work. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Text edits made; I'll see what I can do about the map. --PresN 02:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: Okay, I've made a modified version of the map that has an inset- it's still microscopic, but it's at least visible now as more than a single red pixel- the island is 1.5 x 1 miles (3x1.5 km), and somehow has multiple unique species and subspecies from being cut off from the mainland by a deep 14km ocean trench for so long, which makes it hard to show on a map that's recognizable as being Central America. --PresN 22:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you! Full Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review by BennyOnTheLoose

• All sources are high quaility and appropriate.
• I couldn't see any issues with reference formatting, and none were shown by the ref check script or Citation Bot.

I don't feel I've done a source review unless I've done some spot checks:

• Brown-throated sloth Diet: Leaves, flowers, and fruit of Cecropia trees - no issues.
• Pygmy three-toed sloth IUCN status and estimated population: CR - no issues.
• Giant Anteater Diet: Ants, termites, and soft-bodied grubs - no issues.
• Giant Anteater IUCN status and estimated population: VU - no issues.
• Southern tamandua Habitat: Forest, savanna, and shrubland - no issues.

Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Image review by BennyOnTheLoose

• Infobox image is CC; it's a composite of three CC images and one PD one, so that seems fine.
• All of the other photos (and the illustration for Pygmy three-toed sloth) are either CC or PD. I found no reason to doubt any of the licences.
• Positioning is appropriate; images are adequately clear.
• The maps all seem OK, including the Pygmy three-toed sloth one as mentioned above, and to be in line with a couple of similarly themed featured lists that I looked at.
• Probably due to my ignorance, I wasn't entirely sure that all of the image-alt text is correct (I see from Template:Species table/row that it's mentioned as optional there, but I always encourage the use of alt text per MOS:ALT's "Absent or unhelpful alternative text can be a source of frustration for visually impaired users") PresN, I'll be happy to accept your confirmation that the image-alt text is fine if that's the case. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yep, all images here have alt text in the style of previous lists. --PresN 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• Southern maned sloth is included at Three-toed sloth but not here. I see on the latter's edit history a comment that "There had previously been controversy over whether the southern maned sloth was a distinct species". Are you satisfied that it should be excluded here? (I haven't looked at any sources, so have no opinion. I note that the text in the list under consideration here mentions that "The following classification is based on the taxonomy described by the reference work Mammal Species of the World (2005)".)
• Thanks for your work on this list! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• @BennyOnTheLoose: The current guidelines for WikiProject Mammals are that species should be considered as such if it's in Mammal Species of the World (2005), which can be overrided by agreement between the Mammal Diversity Database and IUCN. The Southern maned sloth (Bradypus crinitus) isnot in MSW3; it's also not in the IUCN catalog, but is in the MDD. As such, it's not in this list- it shouldn't have an article either, but I'm not going to try to enforce the wikiproject standards across thousands of articles. --PresN 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I have no other suggestions, and am satisfied that the list meets the criteria. Thanks for the helpful reponses. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support No suggestions that I can think of, very nice work and good luck on the bats, rodents, and primates. AryKun (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 23 July 2023 (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, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Best Selling Soul Singles number ones of 1970

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's the 28th in this series, and we move into the 1970s. Some of the first wave of Motown stars are starting to fade away, but luckily the label has found a new star act in the form of five kids from Indiana. Feedback as ever most gratefully received...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• It was the final Supremes singer to feature lead singer -- I would think you meant final Supreme single or song release to feature Diana Ross?
  • Fixed - that was a really dumb typo!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Happens to the best of us :) Pseud 14 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• making the group the first act -- perhaps refer to group as either The Jacksons or them instead?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• That's all I got. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review. Responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• "Diana Ross, who departed for a highly successful solo career" - Is this a widely held opinion? Since this is in WP voice, maybe just "departed for a successful solo career" would suffice
• Consider avoiding the name switch between "The Jackson 5" and "The Jacksons" to avoid confusion for unfamiliar readers
• "making them the first act ever to top that listing with its first four singles" - "Their" seems to be the pronoun used for the Jackson 5 elsewhere here and in their bio as well.

That's all from me. Incredible work! I'm really starting to enjoy this series of lists. Very well demonstrated with images as well.--NØ 14:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: - thanks - all done!! Re: point 3, being British I always gets confused by when/how groups are referred to as "it"/"they" in American English...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- NØ 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Brook Benton had his first number one for ten years with "Rainy Night in Georgia".": I don't really have an objection, more like a question: if the sentence had been written as follows, would you have chosen "for" or "in"? "Brook Benton had a number one, his first in ten years, with "Rainy Night in Georgia"."
• "The Supremes had both the first and last number ones of 1970, although only the former featured lead singer Diana Ross (far right), who departed for a solo career early in the year.": I'm not sure, but I think I prefer something like this (if I'm understanding it right): "The Supremes had the first number one of 1970 with Diana Ross as their lead singer, and also the last number one of the year without Ross, who had departed for a solo career."
• "quickly experienced huge success, achieving four number-one soul singles by the end of the year.": Not a fan of "huge success", mainly because I don't know what it means ... are you saying that something happened above and beyond the success that comes from having four number ones in one year? If not, then "huge success" doesn't help, and might be ambiguous for some readers. OTOH, if "four number ones" doesn't feel sufficient to you to describe what was happening, then I'd have no objection at all to seeing a little more about their career that year.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Otherwise, nothing jumps out at me. 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 list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Dank: - thanks for your review, I actioned your points. Re: the Brook Benton caption, it's probably another occasion when my ability to correctly translate myself into US English failed :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Good work. On "in" vs. "for", I just wanted to ask you to think about it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose: Image review, and support

Image review

• All images are PD and I saw no issues with the rationales.
• Images are relevant, with suitable captions. Alt text is provided, and the positioning is fine.
• Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

General

• Support - one very minor comment that's not enough for meto withhold my support: Richie Unterberger could be wikilinked. Everything else looks good. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [9].

---

List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In early May 2007, a violent tornado outbreak struck the Great Plains of the United States. The first day of this outbreak has become notorious with an EF5 tornado essentially wiping the community of Greensburg, Kansas, off the map. This list covers all the tornadoes that touched down throughout this three-day outbreak. It follows the structure set by the two other tornado FLs and should be up to par with MOS requirements for such a large table. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
• "In early-May 2007" - no reason for hyphen there
• Daily statistics table looks a little odd with the totals centre-aligned but the columns above right-aligned
• "A brief tornado lofted" - should that be "lifted?
  • Lofted and lifted work as synonyms but the latter is often used when describing tornado dissipation. In this case it's about the irrigation pivot being thrown. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• "Storm chasers observed observed" - repeated word
• "This first one caused some damage to trees" => "The first one caused some damage to trees"
• "A man was killed in this home" => "A man was killed in his home"
• "where the recreation center and marina heavily impacted" => "where the recreation center and marina were heavily impacted"
• Lots of refs have single square brackets around the title - are those meant to be there?
  • Yes, those are included because the refs don't have actual titles and those are stand-ins. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I've made the above corrections and replied to two of them. Thank you for looking this over, ChrisTheDude! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Dank

• Supporting on prose. Very nice work. I skimmed the prose and made minor edits. Nothing big jumped out at me. Earlier in my wiki-career, I used to do a lot of prose supports ... I usually almost always do complete reviews at FLC, but there was a lot to read here. If I get motivated, I might finish up later. I hope you'll consider reviewing (or even just prose-reviewing) List of basal superasterid families or List of early-diverging flowering plant families or (whenever I can nominate it) List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Note that my last edit wasn't strictly "prose" ... I couldn't find that phrase in the two listed sources. That's not a problem ... I just removed the phrase, and the paragraph works fine without it (prose-wise), but you can re-insert if you want to source it (or if my search failed for some odd reason). - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Oops ... forgot my standard disclaimer "feel free to revert or discuss". That always applies. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Dank: I appreciate the review! The bit you removed isn't of much importance for the purposes of this list so it's all good. I'll take a look at the early-diverging flowering plants in the next day or two. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Continuing.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I covered prose above. I typically don't check sorting on number or date columns, but I did check the state column. I sampled the links in the main table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them for the summary table but not the main one. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |SW of [[Arnett, Oklahoma|Arnett]] becomes !scope=row | SW of [[Arnett, Oklahoma|Arnett]]. 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 18:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @PresN: does the !scope=row need to be in the first cell of the row or is the second cell okay? You've suggested using the location which has a unique identifier for each tornado and that retains the bgcolor for EF#s which is preferable. Alternatively, is |!scope=row or just |scope=row viable to avoid the addition of bolded text or does that not work with screen reader software? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Cyclonebiskit: It can be the second cell, though a) consider if you should just move that whole column to be the first, and b) whatever cell is the header cell needs to be on its own line in the wikicode (looks like all your cells are on their own line, so no worries there). It does have to be just !, ! means header cell while | means regular cell, so |! is a regular cell that has an exclamation point in its text. If you want to remove the bolding, change {| class="wikitable sortable" to {| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" at the top of the table. --PresN 00:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
      • @PresN: I shifted the location columns left to accommodate the change in header cell. The Weather WikiProject has become notorious for contentious discussions on formatting changes in recent years so we'll see how a new MOS adjustment goes over ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Jake Jakubowski

Support Very nicly written with really good statistics. Table layout looks great. The only recomendation I would give is to maybe add the {{{currency}}} template so those outside of the U.S. can understand that your using the U.S. Dollar. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 05:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not the biggest fan of having the EF column as the header as per above, but any header is better than none, and I see the consensus over at the weather project and am not going to fight it. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:15, 13 July 2023 (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, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [10].

---

List of National Football League annual receiving touchdowns leaders

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The style and format of the list is modeled after the NFL featured lists of List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders and List of National Football League annual receptions leaders. This is my first FL nomination and I will be doing my best to quickly address any input and suggestions that are put forth. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Harper J. Cole

• The fact stated below Gronkowski's picture looks wrong, as Vernon Davis is listed as a co-leader in 2009.
• Perhaps there should be a symbol denoting when a tight end appears on the list? It looks like there's three in total.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Good catch, thanks for that @Harper J. Cole. I've changed the text under his picture to read "Rob Gronkowski's 17 touchdown receptions in 2011 are the most among tight ends."

If we wanted to call attention to a player's position we might be better off including a column instead of a symbol, as we have several players from earlier seasons who were not wide receivers. Though this gets a bit more complicated given how players' positions were a bit more ill-defined in the early years. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I decided not to add a column for player positions or a symbol denoting when a tight end appears on the list. If I did so, I'd have to denote each player's position. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's okay - support the article as it stands. Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "but any offensive player" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "offensive player" so people don't think it means players who are swearing or have a personal hygiene problem? ;-)

 Done – Offense (sports) exists, but I chose to wikilink to American football positions#Offense instead.

• "Jerry Rice ranks second with six league-leading seasons" - already mentioned so just use surname

 Done

• "The number of games played by a player the season" => "The number of games played by a player during the season"

 Done

• "Rob Gronkowski's 17 touchdown receptions in 2011 are the most among tight ends." - source?

 Done – I've added a source, but I did so in the description under the player's photo.

• " The NFL did not have a set number of games for teams to play until the 1935 season, instead setting a minimum." - source?

 Done – Source from Pro Football Hall of Fame added.

• Think that's it, nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick feedback @ChrisTheDude, I very much appreciate it. I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Support -- Article looks great! Bringingthewood (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Drat8sub

• Add a short description on the top.
• Ref. 6 used more than 100 times, refs. 24, 70, 77 used 5-6 times. If any alternative reliable sources available for these refs. add to reduce the use of each of these refs.

Rest seems ok for me, well written prose, well structured and sourced with RS, article seems stable. Drat8sub (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the list @Drat8sub, I appreciate you taking the time to do so. I believe, based on WP:SDNONE, that this is a situation where the article title is sufficiently detailed enough that an additional short description would not be helpful. Additionally, List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders and List of National Football League annual receptions leaders, the two featured lists I based this one off of, also do not have short descriptions for the same reason.

Regarding the references:

• Ref. 6 – This is a reference that is used to verify the leader for each year in the tables.
• Ref. 24 – This reference is to Don Hutson's stats and is used 9 times because they appear in the table / lead the league 9 times. It is used to verify the number of games played that season.
• Ref. 70 – This reference is to Jerry Rice's stats and is used 6 times because they appear in the table / lead the league 6 times. It is used to verify the number of games played that season.
• Ref. 77 – This reference is to Randy Moss's stats and is used 5 times because they appear in the table / lead the league 5 times. It is used to verify the number of games played that season.

I'd add alternate references if these were being re-used a number of times in paragraphs, but in this situation I don't think it would be an improvement. It would be inconsistent to add a different reference halfway through the table just to avoid re-using a reference too many times. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Well reasoned, satisfied, happy to support. Drat8sub (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review – The sources used are reliable enough across the board and the link-checker tool shows no issues. There are a few formatting items that could stand to be fixed, though:

• The all caps in the title of reference 10 should be taken out.
• Espn should probably be fully capitalized in ref 11, since that is customary usage.
• The publisher formatting for the NFL.com links in refs 2 and 65 should be made consistent. Right now, one says National Football League and the other says NFL.com. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Giants2008:

• Reference 10 is no longer all caps – [11]
• Good point, ESPN is now fully capitalized – [12]
• References 2 and 65 are now consistent with one another – [13]

Thank you for taking the time to review my nomination and provide feedback, I very much appreciate it. Please let me know if you take a take second pass and find anything else. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:15, 13 July 2023 (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, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [14].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Joan Allen

Nominator(s): _Jovian ^Eclipse 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Joan Allen is a well-known American actress with three Oscar nominations. _Jovian ^Eclipse 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "The following year, she appeared in the historical drama The Crucible as Elizabeth Proctor, a woman accused of witchcraft, and and" - spot the stray word :-)

Fixed. _Jovian ^Eclipse 14:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Allen's portrayal of Eve Archer, the wife of an FBI Agent cheated on by her husband's identity thief" - maybe "Allen's portrayal of Eve Archer, the wife of an FBI Agent cheated on by a man who has usurped her husband's identity" might be clearer.....?

Changed. Yeah, I agree. _Jovian ^Eclipse 14:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, @ChrisTheDude. _Jovian ^Eclipse 14:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• "Allen's off-Broadway debut" – need a citation to prove it was her debut, or simply reword so the sentence doesn't make this claim

Added. _Jovian ^Eclipse 10:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Her first Broadway role came in 1987" – same as above

Added. _Jovian ^Eclipse 10:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• "garnered her international mainstream recognition" – same as above

Added. _Jovian ^Eclipse 10:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• From a quick skim through citations, why is "sugisorensen.com" reliable? Sounds like a self-published source to me.

Changed. _Jovian ^Eclipse 10:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• In the honors table, have a separate column for the awarding organization and put the wikilinks there. The current links are a bit unexpected (MOS:EASTEREGG).

Done. _Jovian ^Eclipse 10:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, @RunningTiger123. The feedback is much appreciated. _Jovian ^Eclipse 10:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed, reviewed with no issues, promoting. --PresN 18:15, 13 July 2023 (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, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [15].

---

List of accolades received by Toy Story 3

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 03:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

After nominating List of accolades received by Toy Story 4 (created by me) to a featured list, I am nominating this (also created by me) too! Chompy Ace 03:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "....finishing its theatrical run as the highest-grossing film of 2010 and the highest-grossing animated film of all time from August 2010 to March 2014" - last part reads oddly, as it sounds like you are saying that it finished its theatrical run as the highest-grossing animated film released between those dates. I think what you mean is "....finishing its theatrical run as the highest-grossing film of 2010; it ranked as the highest-grossing animated film of all time from August 2010 until March 2014"
• "Toy Story 3 garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for Michael Arndt's writing. It garnered five nominations" - pick a different word so you aren't saying "garnered" twice in such quick succession
• Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 07:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

FOARP

Going down the criteria I get:

1) Prose - good.

2) Lead - good

3) A and B both good, C I'm going to AGF except that maybe a time-limit should be given for the gross earnings if one is available (i.e., "as of 2023 it had grossed XXXX").

4) Good.

5) A and B both good.

6) Stable. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• FOARP, C is good since it may be condensed wording, and it is used on such articles like List of accolades received by Dune (2021 film). This may be subject to the film's re-releases so time limit is not needed, especially List of accolades received by Inside Out (2015 film). Chompy Ace 09:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

My issue here is accuracy: as you say the film may be re-released so the number can go up in future (it's the re-releases that make this needed), so for total accuracy we should say as of what date the figure is accurate. FOARP (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

FOARP, done. Chompy Ace 09:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Support FOARP (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• in a variety of categories -- in various categories
• with particular praise for Michael Arndt's writing -- I think praise pertains to reviews, so this should follow after the approval rating statement in the second para. Unless you tweak it to say that Arndt was a recipient of multiple awards or was recognized for his writing or something along those lines.
• Abbr of Ref should be Ref(s) to be consistent with how the full word is written Reference(s) in the table.
• That's it for me. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14, done; I think for you second comment was addressed since I changed to "recognition". Chompy Ace 02:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Would also appreciate your input/comments with a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

From a quick glance at the citations, you shouldn't use italics for the following:

• Digital Spy
• Box Office Mojo
• IndieWire
• BBC News
• ABC News
• CBS News
• TV Tonight
• Awards Daily
• Anime News Network

I'll have a look at the prose later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, your comment I addressed is MOS:ITALICWEBCITE and its footnote. Chompy Ace 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at how that bit says case-by-case basis, I don't see how that inherently means using italics for any of those is warranted as you seem to think. From what I've seen, they more often tend to be used for print works, their accompanying websites, or fully digital magazines/newspapers. Anyway, getting to the prose:

• How much did it earn within 2010 to become the year's highest grossing movie?
• The image caption's use of "awards" from "Michael Arndt received several awards and nominations" to be misleading when the table only shows noms that he lost. It's also an understatement to say "several" (suggesting 5-10 but it's still a vague term that's best avoided) when at least 11 could be counted.
• When discussing BAFTAs, it's worth saying how this won Best Animated Feature
• This neglects to mention Randy Newman winning a Grammy, making it feel incomplete
• While I won't mark you down for leaving out Saturn awards from the lead, it wouldn't hurt to add the wins from that.

Thankfully not a lot of issues. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, partially done. I keep italics on websites within citation since MCU articles do that method. Your first comment is basically its initial release, including re-releases. The fifth comment I addressed is similar to List of accolades received by Encanto. Chompy Ace 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Why they do that is beyond me, but italics often get overused, and I just made a minor fix here. Looks good enough to support this now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Boston Society of Film Critics Awards for Best Film; the source doesn't mention this, instead it says that the movie was nominated for Best Picture
• Critics' Choice Movie Awards for Best Original Song; Should it be "Best Original Song" or "Best Song"? The source says the latter and a quick search shows that all featured awards and nominations lists say "Best Song".
• Golden Trailer Awards for Best Animation/Family TV Spot; According to the source Toy Story was nominated for this award at the 2010 award show too.
• People's Choice Awards for Favourite Movie: According to the source provided Toy Story did not win that award source (Ref 79)

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 14:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon, done except for your first and third comments. The first one is the source I read carefully, stated that the film was a runner-up for Best Picture (title per that link), among others. The third one which mentions film 1 and 2 double feature (not 3); this is WP:UNDUE issue. Chompy Ace 00:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Support. -- EN-Jungwon 03:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the sources used appear reliable enough and well-formatted, and the link-checker shows no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:15, 13 July 2023 (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, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [16].

---

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Music Artist

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

One of the few remaining GLAAD Media Award lists to work on. This award is one of GLAAD's oldest and has gone through quite a few changes in the 1990s, but has remained mostly the same since 2003. Given to queer music artists or allies that use their music to promote LGBT acceptance, it is one of the few awards at the GLAADys that is given to a specific person, rather than a work. Although not all that into music, it was fun to work on another list where I got to add so many pictures. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• "GLAAD first recognized music at the 2nd GLAAD Media Awards in 1991, with Two Nice Girls winning an award" - do we not have a specific title for the award they won?
  • The source itself doesn't specify. In fact, the source doesn't even tell us what the name of the award was. Before I started editing the page, it was stated that they won for Like a Version, but this isn't mentioned in the source, so..
• "Initially, the award could only be given to artists that were openly LGBT" - when you say "initially", does that actually mean "since 2000"? Because Garth Brooks definitely isn't openly LGBT and I don't think Janet Jackson is either..........
  • This is one area where GLAAD's early history regarding categories and criteria was in quite a flux. From the sources available, at least from around 2010 to 19, music artists had to be openly queer, and this was changed in 2020. However, according to this source, from 2002-03 when the category was known as Outstanding Music Album, the criteria stated that the "album may be nominated if it is by an openly gay artist - even if the lyrics are not explicitly about gay issues. Or, the album may be by a non-gay artist, if there is more than one song which addresses LGBT issues".
    • Maybe change "Initially, the award could only be given to artists that were openly LGBT" to "At one time, the award could only be given to artists that were openly LGBT".....? Because "initially" definitely doesn't look accurate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Done. I hope it's ok now. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
        • You still have "Moreover, while the award was initially given to openly queer artists....." (apologies, I may have missed before that "initially" was used in two places..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I'm stupid. Removed it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Melissa Etheridge won Outstanding Recording Artist in 1994, for "I'm the Only One" (1994), and Greatest Hits: The Road Less Traveled (2005)." - she didn't win in 1994 for both these releases

• • I can see how it might be confusing. She won in 1994 in the Outstanding Recording Artist (without any work being recognized), and then in 1995 for a work from the previous year. Maybe I can slightly rewrite the sentence?
    • OK, I get it now. In that case I suggest changing it to "Melissa Etheridge won Outstanding Recording Artist in 1994, and also won awards for "I'm the Only One" (1994), and Greatest Hits: The Road Less Traveled (2005)." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• I think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text to all of the images.

• Done, Although I never know what exactly to include in alt descriptions. I went for the most basic and simple ones. Hopefully they suffice. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• I do not think ALT text is really standardized so you are good. I am also never quite sure what to put there as there is such a huge range when it comes to how descriptive or not it can be. Everything looks good to me though. Aoba47 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have a comment for the images in the actual list itself. I do not think it is encouraged to use image size parameters like "120px". I have seen this kind of comment crop up on FACs. For that reason, I would use the WP:Upright command instead and adjust accordingly.

• Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing this part. I know it is a pain. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Lol, that was like the easiest one to do. XD

• Just making sure. Aoba47 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• I am curious on the placement of the Adam Lambert and Frank Ocean tie in the lead. The last paragraph seems to be more focused on those kinds of stats (like Rufus Wainwright being the most-awarded in the category) so that information seems better suited there than the second paragraph, which seems to be more about the history of the nominations and wins and shifting titles.

• I looked at some of the previous lists I've worked on; apparently I was simply following their lead. I think the main reason for placing there is because that section concerns itself with the history of the award, while the last paragraph is mostly focused on the nominees based on how many nominations / wins they've amassed. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Just to be clear, this was more of a clarification question than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. I will read through the list a few more times once everything has been addressed just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. I hope you have an excellent weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything! I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Starting with the 11th GLAAD Media ... Starting with the 15th GLAAD Media Awards in 2004, -- two consecutive sentences that begin with starting with perhaps a variation i.e. beginning with or somewhere along those lines.
• but this criterion was altered starting -- I don't know if it's just me, maybe, but altered sounds a bit negative (in a way that someone altered the results or something), perhaps revised or changed as a suggestion.
• Rufus Wainwright seems to be linked twice in the lead.
• That's it from me. Another great work within the GLAAD series. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: Thank you. Only 3 more competitive awards to go, but I'm not sure when I'll do them. Anyway, revised list based on statements. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. Nice work on this series, I'll keep an eye out for future FLCs. On a separate note, if you have spare time or inclination, wondering if I could get your input on my current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: Thank you. :D And sure, I'd love helping another Filipina's page. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks PanagiotisZois. I have put forward a recent one needing more review: List of awards and nominations received by Kyla. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – The sources are sufficiently reliable and well-formatted. The link-checker was having issues accessing ref 55, but I was able to view the page without problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorting does not work on the first table- the multi-column cells make it sort into a messy pile instead. I've disabled it there; otherwise no issues promoting. --PresN 18:15, 13 July 2023 (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, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [17].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Angel Aquino

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Having worked and brought Angel Aquino's filmography to FL status, here's another one of her related list article that I am nominating. Her list of awards and nominations where I've added a concise and readable introduction/lead, formatted to a singular table, thoroughly searched for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since sourcing can be a challenge, especially for Filipino subject(s). Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "for her performance in erotic drama Laro sa Baga (2000)" => "for her performance in the erotic drama Laro sa Baga (2000)"

Oops fixed

• "That same year, she presented the magazine lifestyle show Us Girls" => "That same year, she began presenting the magazine lifestyle show Us Girls" (assuming she didn't only present it in 2007)

You are right, revised as suggested

• In the table, "Ang Huling Cha-Cha ni Anita" sorts under H, not A. Is this because Ang means The?

That's correct, the direct translation is The Last Cha-Cha of Anita

• I don't think note F is needed because it just repeats the name of the category

Remove efn

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing a review of my FAC and this FLC ChrisTheDude. I truly appreciate it. Your comments have been actioned and provided with responses. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - great work, as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reviews and support ChrisTheDude. I'm grateful as always, much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• It's not my job to evaluate the Young Critics Circle ... that's up to source reviewers and the members of the relevant wikiprojects. I'm going to assume for purposes of this review that they're an acceptable source, despite the fact that one of their official sites (Wordpress) would otherwise be problematic (as marked by the UPSD tool).

• @Dank: After some internet digging, I was able to find reliable secondary sources for each nominations at the Young Critics Circle. It seems to be a challenge in terms of sourcing when dealing with Philippine subjects, especially in entertainment. Often times I would pre-empt these in most of my nomination statements. Philippine awards organizations are generally under-funded and do not maintain domains for official websites because of costs. I typically rely on secondary sources when available. Hopefully these sources are now accpetable. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose and made minor edits; nothing big jumps out at me. 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. I'm reserving judgment on the Young Critics Circle. Otherwise, the list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.

• Same as above, wordpress source has been replaced. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• 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 one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support Dank. I have addressed the issue on sourcing. Let me know if there's anything amiss. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

I could not find any issues with the list's prose so I support this FLC for promotion based on that. Since this nomination has not received a source review. I will be posting that below:

• The citations are look reliable and appropriate for a potential FL. Thank you for replacing the WordPress citations as I would agree that those would have been questionable.
• The citations are for the most part well-structured. When I did a spot-check, I found that the information matches the citations and what is cited in the actual lead and list. I do have a few minor points about this below:
• Make sure that films and shows are presented in italics in the citation titles to fit with WP:CONFORMTITLE. I am mentioning this specifically for Us Girls in Citation 5, but I would strongly encourage you to double-check all the citations to be on the safe side.

Thanks for catching this, I may have missed this part. Should be fixed now and after a review of the rest of the titles, it should now conform to the titles being in italics. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• For the Google Books citations (Valle, Brizuela, Torre, Santamaria, and Vergara), I would include the page numbers and use the via= parameter to mark that these are accessed via Google Books just to provide a more complete citation for readers.

Thanks for pointing this out. It's always a hit and miss for me. Fixed now. I'll make sure to always add these parameters going forward now that you've suggested this. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Citation 38 is dead. All of the other sources are live though at least on my end.

I have updated the url status so that the archived and accessible link goes first. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful. Once my comments have been addressed, this should pass my source review. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47, Thank you very much for doing a review of the prose and sourcing. Really appreciate it. I have addressed each of your comments on sourcing. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I am just glad that I could help. This passes my source review. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Aoba47. Much appreciated. Have a wonderful week ahead. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois

1. "For a role in the drama Sana Pag-ibig Na" would be better as "for her role".
2. In general, I think that the first paragraph could have the sentences switched around a bit. Basically, you go "first film appearance", "first TV appearance (for which she won an award)", and then you go back to film for "first film award nomination". Maybe it'd be better to switch the last two around, so that it goes in chronological order: "first film role", "first film award nomination", and "first TV role". Given that the last two also happened the same year, you could connect that with each other. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review PanagiotisZois. All actioned. Let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 9 July 2023 (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, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [18].

---

12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Nominator(s): TheUzbek (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Vietnamese politics is exciting! Hopefully, you find this list as exciting as I do. I nominated this list by happenstance—I was planning to start work on the 20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party—but I saw that Wikipedia was missing some very basic articles on the CPV. I didn't create this article, but I modelled it on another FL. I, however, made some changes of my own to improve referencing and style.

I know that communist politics, and Vietnamese politics more generally, is not the sexiest topic in the world, but I hope some of you will take your time to review it. TheUzbek (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Airship

I'll give this a shot. I don't know Vietnamese, so my comments will naturally focus on the prose (which is where they tend to go anyway).

• The lead is very lengthy: five pretty massive paragraphs. Per MOS:LEAD, it shouldn't be more than four unless the article is that unsummarisable.

• What this does, in effect, is make the lead unengaging and difficult to follow, especially for those unfamiliar with the topic.
• The fourth paragraph seems generally unconcerned with the article subject, and would be more suited for Politics of Vietnam or something.

• • Removed, I agree with you!

• You should also try to streamline the prose better. Take the second paragraph, for example. The ending sentences of "This anti-corruption campaign ... Or, as former United States diplomat ..." would be better served coming after the first two sentences outline the anti-corruption campaign.

• • Fixed

• On the note of streamlining, "anti-corruption" is written five times in one paragraph.

• • Fixed

Other comments:

• Is the length column of the meetings section really necessary? I feel that it's fairly self-explanatory.
  • I would say yes, some people might want to sort according to length of meetings.. The other columns don't allow for that.
• I find the linking of the items in the Type section somewhat unnecessary. It would be better if there was a glossary above or below the list explaining what each type actually meant, rather than linking to generic Regulation or Decision-making articles.
  • I don't have any sources that explain what these terms mean to the CPV so that I'm unable to do sadly.

I hope you find my comments useful, TheUzbek. You might want to take a look at my current FLC nomination—any comments at all would be very welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• • @AirshipJungleman29: Do you have any more comments or do you feel I failed to respond to them? :) --TheUzbek (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• I want to try cutting the lead down, but I'm quite busy at the moment. If I haven't responded by Sunday 26th, ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

THe problem with this list is two-fold. First, Vietnam and its Communist Party are not transparent about the work of the Politburo. Therefore this article has to be a little bit of both: during its electoral term - what it did - and its composition - who are members. I'm currently working (here) on the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. I can write a text - an article on that topic - since the CPV is at the very least way more transparent on the CPVCC's meetings.. The plan then is to create two to three separate articles on the following: Apparatus of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam (or just Composition of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam).

One cannot to that with the Politburo or its Secretariat or the Central Military Commission... But maybe we can do it with the CIC... --TheUzbek (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Communist Party of Vietnam should be linked, and shouldn't be used in acronym form immediately
  • Fixed
• "the Politburo is between the party congresses convocations and the Central Committee's plenary sessions, the highest decision-making institution in the CPV and Vietnam." what does "in between" mean?
  • Fixed -- is it understandable now?
• "The total number of meetings the 12th Politburo convened has not been publicly disclosed to the media. Still, some have been publicly reported and are listed below (see "Meetings" section)." Are these sentences necessary?
  • I would say yes... It showcases the lack of transparency and our lack of knowledge on Vietnamese politics. Its as if the United States Federal Government didn't disclose the number of cabinet meetings or what the cabinet discussed.
• "The 12th National Congress adopted a resolution ..." does this need to be a lengthy quote, or can it be removed/paraphrased?
  • Fixed
• "The 5th Plenary Session ... on 22 January 2018" can be one sentence at most. How about "Đinh La Thăng was removed from the Politburo in May 2017 when the 12th Central Inspection Commission started investigating him for mismanaging the state-owned enterprise PetroVietnam, resulting in a loss of 800 billion Vietnamese dong; he was arrested in December 2017 and sentenced to thirteen years in prison in January 2018."
  • Fixed
• Is it politburo or Politburo?
  • Fixed
• "Institutionally, the campaign was strengthened by ... cases drawing public attention". are two long quotes really needed? Why not "In tandem with the anti-corruption drive, Prime Minister Nguyễn Xuân Phúc began to streamline the government by cutting the number of deputy prime ministers from five to four and ministries from 26 to 22; in addition, six Politburo members were appointed to serve in the Central Steering Committee on Anti-corruption, the Central Inspection Commission was given auditing and supervisory powers, and seven teams were set up to detect and investigate public corruption cases."
  • Fixed, but not as suggested.. What do you think of the present sentence?
• Is the David Brown quote necessary?
  • Fixed, removed.
• I got lost in the third paragraph. I don't get why regulation 90-QĐ/TW is important, and it seems to contradict itself: "only Trọng and Đinh Thế Huynh did not meet the criteria to be elected General Secretary ... Nguyễn Phú Trọng was indeed elected for a third term".
  • Fixed, rewrote and shortened quote. More understandable now?

I'll leave those here for your inspection. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I've responded to you're comments. --TheUzbek (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: So?? --TheUzbek (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Title becomes !scope=col | Title. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. You have this for some columns (e.g. the first table) but not all.
• 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. | 01-CT/TW becomes !scope=row | 01-CT/TW. 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 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @PresN: Done, thanks! --TheUzbek (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "the Politburo is in between convocations of the Party's National Congress and the Central Committee's plenary sessions, the highest decision-making institution in the CPV and Vietnam". I do not understand this. How can a body be between meetings?
  • Better? Some institutions are permanent. For instance, the 117th United States Congress had a 1st Session that lasted from January 3, 2021 to January 3, 2022. The Politburo only convenes for a couple of days a month. In between those meetings there is no Politburo activity as such. They implement the decisions made by the previous Politburo, Central Committee or National Congress meeting or respond to day-to-day issues. Understandable?
• "The Politburo is not a permanent institution". What does this mean? The 12th obviously is not, but the Politburo as an institution appears to be permanent.
  • Better now? Same as above.

• I am not clear what a session means in the American context - let alonr the Vietnamese one - and I think the term is better avoided. "The Politburo is not in permanent session; it instead convenes meetings several times a month to discuss and decide upon significant policies." This could be changed to "The Politburo convenes meetings several times a month to discuss and decide upon significant policies." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• • • Done
• "800 billion Vietnamese dongs". This means nothing to a reader who does not know the value of a dong. An approximate conversion to dollars would be helpful.
  • I'm not American and I would be just as confused if it was in an American currency. So what to do?

• I am not American either but like the great majority of English-speaking people I have an idea of the value of a dollar and none of a dong. I think an approximate conversion would help the reader. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• • • Done

• It is usual to keep the figure in the local currency and add the dollar figure in brackets. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Done

• "limits general secretaries to serve a maximum of five-year terms," Presumbly two terms, but you should say so.
  • Done
• This paragraph is confusing due to the irrelevant details. I would delete "The Politburo approved regulation 90-QĐ/TW on 4 August 2017 to further institutionalise the transfer of power. To be appointed General Secretary, one needs to be an incumbent member of the Politburo who has served at least one full electoral term, the regulation states. Furthermore, it tasks the sitting CPV General Secretary to prepare their successor for office. Of the 17 members of the 12th Politburo, only Trọng and Đinh Thế Huynh did not meet the criteria to be elected General Secretary by the 13th Central Committee.[10]" None of this is irrelevant to the consolidation of Trong's power, which is the subject of the paragraph.
  • Done
• Also spell out when Trọng first became General Secretary.
  • Done
• It would be helpful to link cities such as Đà Nẵng city and provinces.
  • Done
• Does each Politburo last for five years? If so, you should say so.
  • Done

Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• One further point is that I am not clear what the powers of the Politburo are? None of the types are shown as laws. Which body or bodies can pass laws? This should be clarified. Dudley Miles (talk)
  • Done, added the following sentence: "The Politburo convenes meetings several times a month to discuss and decide upon significant policies, which are then implemented by the relevant state or party bodies, such as the National Assembly of Vietnam if the policy concerns law-making, or the Party's Central Organisation Commission if it concerns cadre policy."

@Dudley Miles: First, thank you very much for bothering to review this list! I had entirely forgotten that I had nominated it since no one had :P

Secondly, I hope I satisfactorily responded to your comments. --TheUzbek (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: --TheUzbek (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. One other minor point is that I do not see any reason for "Political Bureau of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam" in the first line to be in italics. See also the comment above on currency. Otherwise, the article looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Done, and thank you for reviewing the article. Have a nice day! --TheUzbek (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@PresN: Will this ever be approved or is that an impossibility since @AirshipJungleman29: refuses to continue his review of the article? --TheUzbek (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I went through and made some edits myself as well as a source review; I'm going to go ahead and promote. I do think, as you mention above, that compared to lists for other countries there's a bit of an issue with this list having to handle both "who was in the 12th Politburo" and "what did it do", which makes it text-heavy. I would recommend trying to separate those out into different lists/articles in the future, to allow lists like this to focus on one subject. --PresN 14:25, 5 July 2023 (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, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [19].

---

List of peramelemorphs

Nominator(s): PresN 16:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

We've finished off the kangaroos, so now with #28 in our series of animal FLCs we have one last order of Australian marsupials. Peramelemorphia contains the bandicoots and bilbies, with 19 extant species and 3 extinct ones. They're all relatively small, shrewish looking animals, and like with previous Australian lists the extinct species were made extinct in the early to mid 1900s, while a bunch of the species from New Guinea are missing (free) pictures. This is the last list of marsupials or Australian mammals, and the second-to-last single-order list, and it follows the same pattern as the dozen or so single-order lists that have come through here before. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments from SilverTiger

• "... and pig-footed bandicoot were made extinct by the mid-1900s." I suggest rewording to "... and pig-footed bandicoot were driven extinct by the mid-1900s." as the "made extinct" phrase reads a little awkward in my opinion. If all three went extinct during the mid-1900s, perhaps rephrase to "... and pig-footed bandicoot were driven extinct in the mid-1900s."
• The rest of the lede is lovely, the Classification and Conventions sections are clean and the cladogram is behaving. It's a shame that so many of the species are missing pictures and other data, but that is out of our hands. Happy editing, and thank you for your continued work on these lists. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: Switched to "driven" and "in"; sometimes with extinct species it's "last seen in 1910, considered extinct in 1950", which makes it hard to specify, but these three were all last seen in the mid-1900s and then considered extinct in the same time period. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

And with that correction, Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• My only query is "Habitat: None" - how can it have no habitat? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Whoops, fixed. --PresN 12:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

AK

• "peramelemorphs, and" comma seems superfluous
• "1,000 to 100,000" might want to add "adults" or "mature individuals" after, since most people will assume this includes young
• "are categorized as endangered species" → just "are endangered" would be fine
• "were driven extinct" this sounds a bit jarring after the last clause; the previous clause used present tense, so the past here sounds weird.
• "between the three" → "between three"
• "driven extinct" → I think "driven to extinction" would sound better. Also maybe for the use in the lead.
• Our articles on Chaeropus split it into two species, not one as in the list. The split seems pretty widely accepted in the literature; in any case, even if you keep the genus monotypic in the list, you need to change all the Pig-footed bandicoot links to Chaeropus instead of southern pig-footed bandicoot.
• The rest of the list seems fine. AryKun (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  @PresN AryKun (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• @AryKun: Done. Since the IUCN still has Chaeropus as one species (and MSW3 did as well) we're stuck with one species here, so changed the link. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Could you add subspecies and link them in the table then? Or maybe add a note? AryKun (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• @AryKun: Added a note. --PresN 20:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. AryKun (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• All sources look reliable and I couldn't spot any issues with formatting
• I added links to two authors in the "Sources" section
• I checked sources #13, #14, #36, #45 and they were all fine
• I tried to check the source for the cladogram but it all seemed quite complicated; happy to assume it's fine though
• I think the note should be sourced

Happy to support. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 15:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – As with the other similar lists I've checked sources for, reference reliability and formatting are fine, and no issues were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Image review – I checked a sampling of the photos used in the article, and all had appropriate free licenses and captions, in the case of the lead images. Also, the maps used had appropriate sourcing when necessary. I did notice that the Pig-footed bandicoot photo didn't have alt text, unlike the others I looked at, so that may be one small thing to address. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Fixed, thanks! --PresN 22:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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