Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2022
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, 20 June 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-nominating this article as it failed the last time due to inactivity. I addressed everyone's issues on the last one, so I'm ready for whatever else needs to be resolved. Erick (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review — pass per previous FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "data compiled by Nielsen's Broadcast Data Systems (BDS)." — BDS is never again mentionned in the article. Do we need to specify the acronym?
- ""Enamorado Por Primera Vez" held this position" — avoid starting sentence with a quote
- "Luis Miguel spent a total of six weeks" — Name already mentionned. Just writing the surname would suffice
That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the comments! "Miguel" is not Luis Miguel's last name, it's Gallego Basteri, that's why I have it written like that. Otherwise, everything else has been resolved. Erick (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "which had previously topped the chart on the week ending December 28, 1996,[3] and spent a total of five weeks at number one" - I think it should be in the week of December 28. Also, I would change the last part to clarify that the song spent four further weeks at number one in 1997 for a final total of five.
- "were cited by Reforma as 1997 being the year of the bolero due to the songs popularity" => "were cited by Reforma when the newspaper described 1997 as the year of the bolero due to the songs' popularity"
- That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Done! How does it look now? Erick (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by RunningTiger123
[edit]- Citation needed in lead to show Marta Sánchez and Diego Torres hit number 1 for the first time this year
- "only chart-topper in the year" → "only chart-topper this year"
- "El Reloj" should sort by "Reloj", not "El" – don't sort by "The" or "A" when it is the first word
- Same for "Lo Mejor de Mi"... I think (my high school Spanish is rusty and I could never use "lo" correctly)
Otherwise, this looks really good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @RunningTiger123 Fixed everything but the first one. Billboard doesn't have a database for either artist. Suggestions? Erick (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like you can search the archived page for Sánchez's data. Maybe you could do the same for Torres? That would work. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @RunningTiger123 Worked for Marta Sanchez, but not for Diego Torres. However, I did find an article from Billboard that supports "Se Que Ya No Volveras" being his first No. 1 and it's been added. Erick (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. I would move the citation to immediately follow Torres's name so it's quickly verifiable, but that's a quick fix and I'm happy to support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @RunningTiger123 Worked for Marta Sanchez, but not for Diego Torres. However, I did find an article from Billboard that supports "Se Que Ya No Volveras" being his first No. 1 and it's been added. Erick (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like you can search the archived page for Sánchez's data. Maybe you could do the same for Torres? That would work. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – All of the sources used are reliable and well-formatted, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, 13 June 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): PresN 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Next up in our perpetual journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 1 for Perissodactyla), we leave the set of lagomorph lists and begin a series of single-list orders. We start here with the 22 species of Cingulata, aka armadillos. If like me you live in North America, you may not have known that there is more than one type of armadillo, but it turns out that there's 20 species in South America, one in Central America, and one—the nine-banded armadillo—that has been spreading from Central America through America since the 1800s. They're all pretty similar—while there's a variety of sizes, they all share a basic body plan, and eat either just insects (mainly ants and termites) or also plants and maybe carrion. Like many South American orders/families, there's been a flurry of reorganization over the last couple decades, as new research (and especially new DNA tests and statistical modelling) drive splitting species and moving around subfamilies, but this is up to date on the latest research. As always, this list should reflect comments from prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "the northern naked-tailed armadillo is mainly in Central America" => "the northern naked-tailed armadillo is found mainly in Central America"
- "Dasypodidae, containing containing a single genus" - repeated word
- Screaming hairy armadillo might be my new favourite name for an animal :-)
- That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Both done, thanks! --PresN 20:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AK
- Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.
- Made a couple of minor edits.
- The "primarily" used twice is a bit repetitive.
- Done.
- "11 cm (4 in) plus tail" → How long is the tail?
- I wasn't able to find a source before, but this time around I found a book that actually had it, so, added.
- "Chlamyphorinae subfamily" → "subfamily Chlamyphorinae" sound better, also for the other two
- Done.
- Don't think the duplinks (genus and species) for the monotypic genera in classification are needed.
- Done, someone had asked for them in a prior FLC but I agree with you.
- The cladogram is weirdly placed and runs halfway into the left margin in my view.
- Oh that's weird, that does happen on narrower resolutions. I got it to at least not overlap the margin by floating right instead, though I haven't figured out why it wants to do that in the first place.
- The range maps need alt text. AryKun (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As with all prior FLs in the series, they don't have hidden alt text as instead the maps get what that alt text would have been written above the maps. --PresN 01:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. AryKun (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dank
[edit]- Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
- "They follow a similar body plan, and range in size from the 11 cm (4 in) plus 2 cm (1 in) tail pink fairy armadillo to the 100 cm (39 in) plus 50 cm (20 in) tail giant armadillo.": I recommend something like: "They follow a similar body plan, and range in size from the 11 cm (4 in) pink fairy armadillo to the 100 cm (39 in) giant armadillo", and then you've got lots of choices, such as "not counting the tails, which range from" or "with tails of up to 50 cm (20 in)". (OTOH, the table descriptions are fine, such as "Size: 51–58 cm (20–23 in) long, plus 33–48 cm (13–19 in) tail". I think people are expecting a more conversational tone in the lead, but I could be wrong.)
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. The prose is fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
- 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. I sampled the images; they seem fine.
- 6. It is stable.
- Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another option for that long sentence: "The smallest is the pink fairy armadillo, at 11 cm (4 in) plus a 2 cm (1 in) tail, and the largest is the giant armadillo, at 100 cm (39 in) plus a 50 cm (20 in) tail." - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, used a version of this one. --PresN 23:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – All of the references are well-formatted and reliable, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review – All of the (many, many) photographs are appropriately licensed free images, which have alt text, and the maps have appropriate sourcing on the image pages. Everything looks good on the image front. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.