I am nominating this for featured list because... This timeline of the 2019 Atlantic hurricane season was worked on by many different editors. Upon finding this list, I realized with the help of Drdpw that it is ready for an FLC. I will address all comments/concerns, but most of the work has been done by other editors. Thank you for your time. CodingCyclone[citation needed]19:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is a good list, and the flaws are very few. I agree with Hurricane Noah: the article needs a little editing but otherwise looks good. ~ AC5230 talk15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bold 2019 Atlantic hurricane season in the first sentence, according to MOS.
According to the description at Template:Main, it seems more appropriate to use {{broader|2019 Atlantic hurricane season}} instead of {{main|2019 Atlantic hurricane season}}.
Use en dashes for ranges instead of hyphens (e.g. 5–9 hurricanes).
Missing capital M in ref 8.
Perhaps mention which local time zones are used and where?
I feel like there could be more images or track maps in the body.
@KN2731: Thank you for your comments! These are pieces of advice that I will certainly use in the future. The only one that I couldn't do was the one about time zones, since I can't find a source for that. If you do have something for that, feel free to tell me :) CodingCyclone!🌀📘03:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, moving to support. For the time zones I did find a graphic on page 3 of this but since the boundaries aren't explicitly mentioned it may be considered original research to mention them, so I won't push for its inclusion. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:43, 9 April 2021 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fits the criteria. I first created this article last year but I have spent some time this year fitting it to the criteria. I have used other song lists as references for this article and I have made sure this uses reliable sources. Any comments would be great! LOVI3320:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead photo caption is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
Fixed
Conversely, captions of images beside the table are complete sentences so need full stops adding
Fixed
"Prior to this" - prior to just the album's release or prior to everything mentioned in the previous sentence?
Reworded
"It encompassed dance-pop...." - presumably "it" is the album, but as the last thing mentioned was 21 songs, this reads a bit oddly. Maybe "The album encompassed dance-pop...."
Reworded
"Lipa featured on Charity singles" - no reason for capital C, it isn't a proper noun
Fixed
"collaborated with many of the same songwriters and producers on her first album" => "collaborated with many of the same songwriters and producers as on her first album"
Reworded
"she released a the Blessed Madonna....." - "a the" reads really weirdly, so I suggest re-arranging this sentence completely to avoid this
Reworded
"Registered on the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers" - ASACP is an organisation and you can't register something "on" an organisation, so I suggest "Registered with the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers" (this issue occurs more than once)
Fixed
If "Good Times" was uploaded to her YouTube channel and "Lions & Tigers & Bears" was uploaded to SoundCloud then they aren't unreleased, surely....?
YouTube and Soundcloud aren't formal ways of releasing music. They are social media. However I have noticed that songs released this way are given separate sections. Do you think that would be a better way of organizing? LOVI3320:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Blessed Madonna is written both with and without a capital T
Fixed
Notes for band members are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops
File:Roskilde Festival Dua Lipa-13.jpg: there is some funky stuff going on in the Deutsch description of the file.
I've replaced it. There was some sort of template there that I didn't understand. I hope the new one looks okay.
What's the difference between a single and a promotional single? Isn't a single inherently promotional?
Promotional singles usually are released to promote sales of another project (usually an official single). For example, "Future Nostalgia" was released to push sales of "Don't Start Now". Not all of song list article differentiate between promo singles and non-singles. Do you think I should remove the key for them?
I wouldn't recommend using color-code keys to indicate tracks served as single or promo single; that makes the tables feel overly single-centric, and this isn't supposed to be a singles discography. You'd be better off using keys to highlight whether something was a cover of another person's previous work. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:J Balvin 2015, Austin (cropped).jpg, File:20161119 블랙핑크 멜론뮤직어워드 (1).jpg, File:The Black Madonna at All Points East Festival 2018 (cropped).jpg, File:Miley Cyrus Primavera19 -226 (48986293772) (cropped).jpg, File:DaBaby - The Know Show.png, File:Martin Garrix @ Web Summit 2017.jpg, File:Chelceegrimes.jpg, File:Calvin Harris - Rock in Rio Madrid 2012 - 09.jpg, File:Tove Lo (1) By Daniel Åhs Karlsson.jpeg, File:Madonna by David Shankbone cropped.jpg, File:Chris-martin.jpg, File:Julia Michaels (cropped).jpg, File:Singer Miguel 2013 2.jpg, File:Kylie Minogue - Summer 2019 - Step Back In Time Tour - Castlefield Bowl - Manchester - 11.07.19 - 236.jpg, File:MNEK Glatsonbury Festival 2014 by neal whitehouse piper cropped.jpg, File:Seanpaul01.jpg, File:Mark-Ronson.jpg, File:Songwriter Emily Warren.png, and File:FKA twigs (16391770926) (cropped).jpg all need Template:Personality rights at the Commons like File:Roskilde Festival Dua Lipa-13.jpg has.
I believe more references are needed generally, for instance there is nowhere mentioned that Sonny Bono wrote "Bang Bang" in the reference provided, unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see somebody else has commented on the images, so be sure they're all free of copyright and their file sources are accessible.
I have doubled checked every image and I believe they all satisfy those restrictions
Only four tracks total are mentioned in the lead? That's not nearly enough! I would also include some non-singles to make it more diverse (don't solely focus on singles when those aren't the only type of songs this page lists).
I have added some specific song mentions that I see as notable. Most are collaborations but I have also added ones where the songwriters or producers are notable.
See my above comment on why keys shouldn't be used for single/promo single releases.
Replaced. I have also added a key on remixes where Lipa doesn't appear on the song's original version.
Thank you for the comments SNUGGUMS! I hope I can change that oppose in the future but I have addressed all you comments. I hope everything looks okay now. LOVI3322:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better looking now! It's enough for me to support. I made one minor change here since 2014 isn't her first professional endeavor overall, just when the musical part of Lipa's life began (she did some modelling beforehand). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to the album's release, she released a Spotify Sessions EP and The Only EP" --> "Prior to the album's release, she released two extended plays (EP), Spotify Sessions (2016) and The Only (2017)"
Reworded
"Of the 25 songs included on all editions of Dua Lipa, Lipa co-wrote 21 of them" -- I think this sentence would be just as good without "of them"
Reworded
"dance-pop, electropop and R&B genres while it mainly used electronic productions" -- Electropop is a sub-genre of electronic music so I think the second part of this sentence is already implied. You could just keep "dance-pop, electropop and R&B genres" or change it to "dance-pop, electropop and R&B genres and electro-funk, synth-pop and tropical house elements" or something in that vein.
Reworded
"The singer released an EP titled Live Acoustic in 2017, which featured several covers and released a Deezer Sessions EP in 2019" --> "The singer released the EPs Live Acoustic (2017), which featured cover versions of songs by other artists, and Deezer Sessions (2019)"
Reworded
I think "Don't Start Now" and "Break My Heart" are pretty glaring absences from the lead. Perhaps throw in a sentence like "Lipa's second studio album Future Nostalgia was released in March 2020, preceded by the singles, "Don't Start Now", "Physical" and "Break My Heart"".
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.
When I finished with the previous 6 lists (see User:Dank), I thought I was done with these ... then I discovered that Lotte Burkhardt did some phenomenal work in 2016 and 2018 on plant genera named for people. That tipped the scales in favor of writing 4 or 5 more lists ... and maybe, hopefully, there will be a longer series of lists to follow. AFAIK, her work has never been translated into English, not even snippets ... until now, by me. The main purpose of this list is to connect her work and other academic work with Wikipedia pages in various languages (usually English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese). When I couldn't find a suitable page on any Wikipedia, I checked Wikidata, and the results of that search are on the talk page of the list. It may be that this sails through FLC, or it could run into difficulties ... either way, this is submitted for your approval, and your feedback will be important. Unlike in the previous lists, these lists represent (for me) one of the ways that good science gets done in the 2020s ... I hope you feel the same. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude and Aza24, apologies, I've just made a change after you two okayed the list, replacing all the interlanguage links. My {{ill}} links were pointing to one or two non-English Wikipedias, in cases where the en.wp article on an author is red-linked; what I'm doing now duplicates the function of using {{ill}} with its Wikidata parameter, that is, the second link now sends the reader to the last section of the relevant Wikidata page, with links to other Wikipedias and to Commons, Wikispecies, Wikisource, etc. I now think this is better than what I had, because it sends readers of the English Wikipedia to a page that's in English, and it includes all the links they might find useful, not just one or two. But I didn't make the change because it's better, I did it because it's necessary: as you know, I like to cram as many rows in as I can, stopping just short of the point where the page is so long that images stop loading for some readers, so that I don't need too many pages to cover A to Z. I just found out that {{ill}} has a warning about its "expensive parser function calls", and I need to avoid those. What I lose by tossing {{ill}} is that the second link doesn't magically disappear at the point where the relevant article is created here on en.wp ... but it's not as important now for the second link to disappear, because I'm not sending readers to a foreign-language Wikipedia any more (I'd be happy to manually remove them as needed, or leave them in.) Any questions or problems with this? - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there doesn't seem to be much uniformaty in which Wikipedias have links for which articles, the decision makes sense to me. If this were a Chinese history list and every missing article had site links when they all have Chinese articles, that might be an issue, but this type of scenario doesn't seem to be present here. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"portrait of Christoph Jacob Trew" caption is missing a capital letter
Identical image of Alice Eastwood is used twice in the article
"French agricultural engineer and head of the French colonial administration in Madagaskar" - last word is spelt incorrectly
Happy to review it, but these days I prefer to wait until someone has mentioned that they've looked at prose specifically ... I'm taking a break from the TFA job and that seems to be translating into taking a break from prose work in general. Btw, I inadvertantly left a few rows off from this table, I'll be adding them within the hour ... I'll try not to screw it up and give you extra work :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images have the "alt=" parameter, and almost all of them have text after that. Whether there should be text and what the text should be continues to be something that some Wikipedians (not me) like to fight about. But my position is "the reviewer is always right" ... if you can pick out some of the blank ones that you think would be improved by alt text, I'll be happy to try to oblige. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd answer this, since I'm not sure MeegsC will since it was just a drive-by, and honestly after following your FLC's for a while, I'm really disappointed in the effort gone to the alt text on these images. Examples include man, seated, flowers, flowering plant, portrait of a man, residential building, tree to name a few (or in some cases multiple images). None of these descriptions tell me anything about the images used, and what they contain to any great extent. Certain ones while minimal at least give some detail to what the picture contains portrait of Rear Admiral Bligh in uniform, plant with berriessmall palm tree and some of them are just nonsense to people out of context like inflorescence. There are at least ten images that are missing alt text here as well, all of which are easily found using the alt text tool in the toolbox for the nomination.
What's more I went through someoftheotherlists you've nominated to find alt text just plain missing, the alt= are there, but there is no description of the content of the picture at all and I'm honestly shocked that not a single person has brought it up before. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Different people have different views of alt text. I try not to start any fights, and I try to be responsive to the reviewers I get. Do you plan to submit any of the previous 6 lists to WP:FLRC to de-feature them over alt text, or are we just looking at this list? - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC) (I'm asking because I think those 6 lists are special cases. In those, each image is a plant, sitting there looking like a plant, usually without any relevant context. In the current nomination, we've got images of people, which is a different matter. If you can tell me what kind of alt text you're looking for in the plant images, that will help get us started.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text rules are complicated and not agreed upon, especially for more decorative images like here. Remember that it's alt text + caption, not just alt text, so it's not just "man, seated", it's "man, seated; DaguerreotypeofAdrien-Henri de Jussieu". WP:ALTTEXT says "Often the caption fully meets the requirements for alternative text", and I'd argue that pretty much every image has a caption that "describe[s] or identif[ies]" the image. That said, again per ALTTEXT, none of them should be blank, as otherwise screen readers will try to read out the image file name instead. The question in my mind, then is: is "flowers, Aaronsohnia" enough of a description? Alt text is supposed to describe what an image is, not what it looks like, so that caption does that well enough, in my opinion. --PresN18:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's my understanding too. Does everyone agree that captions and alt text for people and places are, in general, more problematic than the ones for plants? If so: would anyone like to suggest alt text for some of the people and places? We can't always get people to agree on the best alt text, but it doesn't hurt to try ... and if it becomes clear that the positions are far apart and not getting any closer, I have no objection at all to pulling problematic images. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, grrr, I may not be up to speed here. I thought that the point of adding alt= (in cases where the caption is sufficient without alt text) was to avoid the bug of the screen reader reading out the name of the image file ... following the links at WP:ALT, it appears that alt="" may now be necessary to avoid the screen reader bug. If anyone needs more than that, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not source related; I'm not a fan of "see ..." it kind of defeats the sorbability for the column (as all the Bolusafra ones don't sort together), I would suggest just copying the same entry over.
Really, really appreciate your work on source reviews. I admit that my way isn't the usual way of doing it, and that there are reasons not to do it my way. I'm teetering between "I trust your judgment and it's not a big deal" and "Consistency (database systems) is important, on and off Wikipedia". (And given that anyone can edit, and most people aren't too careful when they edit, and identical lines provide no clue that there's a separate line with the same information that needs to be updated, it will take about two seconds for the list to start contradicting itself if we do it your way.) Give me a few days to mull it over. If I change the sorting parameters so that "See X" always sorts just below "X", does it become a non-issue for you, or are the aesthetics still wrong even if it sorts right? - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me (not enough sleep) that the usual solution at FLC for problems like this is to combine cells. It's not a perfect solution (in this case), and it makes formatting a little harder, and it won't fix the consistency problem, but there's value in doing things in the format people are expecting to see ... and it's probably prettier. I'll think it over when I get up. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. If you're saying that I should say this in a more compact way, or use a different parameter ... sure, I can do that. 2. If you're saying we shouldn't mention licensing at all ... I realize it's not one of the parameters at {{cite book}}, and that seems unfortunate to me (and maybe hypocritical, given that we're Wikipedians and we expect people to respect our copyleft license? Not sure.) But I'm fairly ignorant about source review issues. Does it ever cause problems to mention that a source is copyleft rather than copyright?
Verifiability
I can't remember if there was a reason in the other lists for this (or if it happened there) but why no page numbers for so many of the citations? If it's because they cover a lot, maybe a page range could be included? It is a big dubious to point readers to an entire book for verification, even more so when this list is only for A-C people Aza24 (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Giants and other reviewers seem to be on board; see for instance WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant genus names (D–K)/archive1. Two issues: 1. This list, and my sources, are alphabetical reference works (except for Christenhusz, who starts off with an alphabetical index ... and he's rarely used in this list). If you're looking something up in a printed dictionary, do you ask for a page number or look it up alphabetically? 2. Most readers aren't going to put up with a list spread out over many pages, for the same reasons that people are turned off by multi-volume reference works. So I'm cramming as many rows as I can get into each list. Adding templates to every row reduces the number of rows I can have before some reviewers start noticing problems with page loading (in particular, the images stop loading correctly). - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that's not really what I meant. If the sources are alphabetical, surely there is a smaller page range that covers all of them? What I'm wondering is if you can put the page range for all the entries in the citation in the References, not as individual templates for each entry. Does that make sense? I understand your sentiment, I think, but this seems less dubious than essentially citing an entire encyclopedia, and I don't think it's too much to ask...? Aza24 (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. Done, I think. I omitted "A-1 through Z-12" from Burkhardt; as a reader, I wouldn't know what that meant. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Here's my thinking: this lead is the same length as the ones in my 4 genus lists that are FLs, so I think people have been okay with the leads so far. This list is intended to fill a void on the web as a reference work ... I'm hoping people will use it to look things up ... and I'm thinking they won't want a long intro, because then they'll feel obligated to read it in case it has unintuitive instructions or disclaimers, when what they really want to do is jump straight to what they're looking for ... no one reads the instructions in a dictionary unless they think for some reason they have to. I can say more, I guess, but I'm interested in your thoughts. Is there anything specific you'd like to see? - Dank (push to talk)
Why are the lifespans and occupation/importance of the namesakes only sometimes included?
Good catch ... if you've clicked on the hatnote you'll see that all the lifespans are included there, even when there are blue links ... I intentionally did it two different ways to see if it prompted a request to do it one way or the other .... do you have a preference? Other than dates, when there's a blue link, I'd prefer not to repeat (or worse, contradict) the information available at the link ... this isn't a matter of appearance so much as knowing what tends to piss Wikipedians off ... in this case, a long list of bio material by one editor from just a few sources that contradicts or supplants the work of many Wikipedians from many sources, collected and hashed out over decades in some cases. (Also, there's already about as much text as the page will hold without causing image-loading problems for some readers, and I want to focus readers' attention on the entries that need more attention. But these are secondary points.) - Dank (push to talk)
Does the futher reading The Names of Plants contain anything relevent that could be included in this list?
Gledhill is an excellent source, but in all my previous lists, I haven't made specific reference to him except in special cases ... and, generally, I found that those special cases don't occur in these lists. There are better sources for these things. I can remove him from the Further Reading if you prefer. - Dank (push to talk)
I would cut back on a few of the images. They, at least on my screen, continue past the references section and create a large blank space at the bottom...
Sure. I found that on any large screen at any zoom, and on small laptops screens at a zoom of 110% or higher, the pictures didn't create white space at the bottom, but I'll be happy to trim a couple. - Dank (push to talk)
Thanks much for reviewing. Sorry I've been distracted with my own work for a month, I'll watch FLC more closely now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "including many women and non-Westerners" in the lead feels off. I fully understand the sentiment, but I think it's unnecessary. I personally think it's better to cut this; as it currently stands, it makes it seem like this should be unexpected, which doesn't help to normalize the inclusion of women and non-Westerners in the field.
Done.
No need for the table of contents at both the beginning and end
I'm happy either way, but this is my seventh plant list at FLC and the previous 6 had it in the See also section, so I'd need to check with previous reviewers before removing it ... happy to do that if you want me to. I did it that way following the example of some of Wikipedia's botanical lists, for instance, List of botanists by author abbreviation (A). (And IIRC, at least one reviewer either commented on it or requested it, that's why I'd have to go back and ask.) - Dank (push to talk)
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.
"Styles was nominated in three categories including, Best Pop Vocal Album" - no need for that comma
removed
Sorting in the "nominee/work" column needs some adjusting. Song titles that start with a " should sort based on the first actual word (I have noticed that the Meghan and Dua lists don't sort like this, but they are wrong). Also, the word The at the start of an entry should be disregarded, so The Chain should sort under C.
As mentioned, song titles that start with a " should sort based on the first actual word. Currently all the song titles sort together at the start, meaning that Watermelon Sugar comes before Dunkirk. You need to stick a sort template on each one (should be reasonably painless with a search + replace....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two Dunkirk entries could do with a footnote saying who he shared the award with. If that level of detail wasn't made public, put "Shared with the cast" or similar.
since the names aren't explicitly mentioned in any source, so I've added the footnote with "Shared with the cast" next to the two nominations in the table.
You've put "GAFFA Awards (Denmark)", but you haven't appended the country to any other awards (ie you haven't put "ARIA Music Awards (Australia)" or "Rockbjörnen (Sweden)". Lose the "Denmark"
I'm not sure One Direction awards are appropriate to have here unless they're credited specifically to Styles as an individual rather than as a group member
If you see this source, Styles has been credited separately and not as a group, so I think this should be kept?
Ref 32: Authors -> Daniel Montgomery, Chris Beachum, Marcus James Dixon, Joyce Eng, Zach Laws, Paul Sheehan
added
Ref 38: Seems to be dead, at least it is not loading at all for me
changed the url-status parameter
Ref 45: Does not mention Styles at all
thanks for noticing, changed the ref.
Ref 53: Date is missing, that's because it's another one of those sources that decided "[insert number] years ago" is a valid enough credit of the date. If you go into the Browser console you can the find the date most of the time. It's March 29, 2018 for this one
added
Checked Refs 38-39, 42-45, 52-55, 59-65, 78; looks good --Lirim
Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption.
Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
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.
Probably, all the Annie "Best..." awards should say Television instead of TV to reflect the Annie's official name, otherwise the 2019 Annie nom for The Bleakening should say TV instead of Television for consistency
WGA awards don't seem to have reliable naming style but other wiki articles seem to have settled on "Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Animation"
It's a puzzler! A reader who hasn't run into your phrasing before might check the source and the wikilink to the WGA awards and question why neither contains "Best Writing..." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. The prose is fine. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all 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 UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present. I'm not good with sourcing on articles like this one, but the other reviewers and the source review are likely to catch any problems.
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. The one image can't be a copyright problem because it doesn't meet the "originality" test for copyright.
6. It is stable.
Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 13 April 2021 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
For nearly two years, I've been nominating lists of species in Carnivora (felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds), covering all of the families of animals in the order that could support a list. Above them, however, was a parent list: List of carnivorans (ex. List of species in order Carnivora), which was a simple bulleted list of all of the species in the order. It couldn't be supplanted by the child lists: 4 of the 15 families are too small to support a list, and the concept of "everything in the order" made sense. But a list that had 11 "main" templates and 4 tiny sections wasn't much use to readers, nor was a mile-long duplicative series of tables. So, we arrive at a capstone FLC: Instead of duplicating the child lists by using the same tables to cover all 285 species, we pull back a level to match the scope going up a level, and have tables covering the 129 genera in the order Carnivora, letting viewers see the relationships at that level with child lists to drill down further into individual families. I hope it is interesting to read! Thanks for reviewing. --PresN03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice to do by genus!
"different" before "body plans" is superfluous
Collage selection is nice
Subfamily Ailurinae (Gray, 1843) – one genera" and elsewhere: should be one genus
"Members of the Canidae family are canids, and include..." and similar elsewhere shouldn't have a comma.
"Members of the Mustelidae family are mustelids, and are composed of" It's not 'members are composed of', should be 'members include' like the others
I see the pattern for those with multiple species but it's not clear why some genus names have a common name under them and not others
I think the diets overuse the word "Primarily". I think it can generally be assumed these are not exhaustive or exclusive lists of everything they can eat. Heck, you can leave off the "eats" and just have a plain list without being a sentence. Though looking at some of the other lists this is used in all of them and I'm surprised I hadn't noticed it before.
@Reywas92: Addressed all issues, thanks for the compliment! The common names are where the genus has one (and has more than one species); most don't- for example, Canis includes both some wolves and the coyote and golden jackal; there's no common name for the group. It's uncommon enough that I'm willing to drop the whole thing as being awkward for readers. --PresN03:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Carnivora can be divided into two suborders: the cat-like Feliformia and the dog-like Caniformia, which are differentiated based on the structure of their ear bones and cranial features." - is there a ref for that sentence in the lead, particularly the last clause? I can't see it sourced anywhere in the body of the article (everything else not cited in the lead seems to be covered by citations in the tables)
I can see both "molluscs" and "mollusks" used - personally I didn't even realise it could be spelt both ways but better to be consistent on one or the other
@ChrisTheDude: Now cited; fixed spelling to "molluscs" - that's the 'correct' scientific spelling (since the genus is mollusca), even if 'mollusks' is a used variant, and it was actually a typo- I didn't realize the k version was a thing and my browser's spellcheck didn't flag it. Thanks! --PresN03:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of duplicate links, even in the lead, e.g. cats, dogs, Eupleridae, Viverridae, Herpestidae ...
Removed the duplicate links in the lead and overview sections
Why is only one sentence of the lead cited?
Most of the lead is a summary of the tables; the part that isn't (how Caniformia and Feliformia are differentiated) is cited. There was another sentence, but that should have been cited outside of the lead and now is.
"Caniformia" is sometimes capitalised mid-sentence, sometimes not, what's the approach?
Should be capitalized, now is
"'divided into 14 genera and placed inside a single extant subfamily, Caninae" vs『Subfamily Caninae (G. Fischer de Waldheim, 1817) – thirteen genera』i.e. 14 v 13.
Fixed, and checked all the other sections for that as well
"tail (Wolf)[10]" in sentence case, no need to capitalise.
At first I had wanted them all to be capitalized as it's not quite a sentence, but as per below I drifted away from that. Now all in sentence case.
"neritic marine" what is that?
Moved link to first instance
"plus 1 cm (0 in) tail" unhelpful conversion.
Removed unhelpful 1 cm conversions
"Racoon" typo.
Fixed
"(brown bear) " etc, you have previously capitalised first word of these names... Quite a few of these.
Fixed per above
"composed of a two extant species" eh? And one shown.
Fixed
ISBNs should be consistently formatted.
They are (well, fixed one that was off)- ISBNs are formatted a-b-c-d-e, where each section isn't a consistent length but the total length is 13. I formatted all of these using the Library of Congress ISBN formatter.
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.
Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the greatest actors of his generation. This list describes his roles in film, television and the stage. As always I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"for which he received National Board of Review Award for Best Supporting Actor" => "for which he received the National Board of Review Award for Best Supporting Actor"
"in Mike Nichols-directed Charlie Wilson's War (2007)" => "in the Mike Nichols-directed Charlie Wilson's War (2007)"
"Two years later, he played a cult leader in Anderson's The Master and Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman." - I would clarify that one was a film and the other a play
Do the sources support the descriptions of the roles he played eg that his character in "Synecdoche, New York" was a "troubled theatre director"?
Sorting on role in the first table gives one odd result - Dustin "Dusty" Davis sorts at the top, above the roles that start with A
In the title column, I would say "25th Hour" should sort as if it starts with the word "twenty-fifth"
In the stage table (role column), James Tyrone, Jr. sorts on J when it should be T
As the notes column in the stage table is a mish-mash of roles and dates, the sorting is really weird. I am not really sure if there is any value in this column being sortable.
I wouldn't fix the widths of the columns in the stage table. The ref(s) column is massively wider than it needs to be, which looks a bit silly
@Cowlibob: - the notes column in the stage table is still sortable, and I'm not sure it is meaningful to be able to sort on that column. If you sort on it you get the following, in this order:
Two dates in April
All the roles prefaced by "artistic director", in month order from February to September
One date in August
All the roles prefaced by "director", in month order from March to October
One role prefaced by "exec director"
Roles from March to September, in alphabetical (rather than chronological) order of month
Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables are missing a caption.
Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the tables, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on some 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. At a glance, the article seems well-sourced to reliable sources ... I'm not good with film sources, but they seem to be okay for what you're using them for. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). Refs 16 and 30 need retrieval dates; the other relevant retrieval dates are all 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. The one image seems fine.
6. It is stable.
Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list noms every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This looks like a well written career history of PSH. I cannot see errors or glaring issues with this list.
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.
We are continuing our goal of bringing all lists of municipalities in Mexico up to a consistent, high standard (9 states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User:Cobblet got to most of these before I did. Thanks for the review! The dates could be changed to the more international English, are you referring to the format in the references? Mattximus (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: - no, I meant the dates of incorporation. These are written in the format "August 15, 1823", which is the US date format. That's fine, but in that case the rest of the article should be in US English. I'm pretty sure the only word that impacts is "kilometers" (that is how it's spelt in the States, isn't it? Correct me if I am wrong......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm the conversion template used is hardcoded to spell it kilometres, and that is closest to the Spanish spelling. I see dates written like the incorporation date format in Canada which also uses the kilometres spelling, can we say it's consistent that way? Mattximus (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is note i written correctly? Same goes with note o and v - not sure the second "and" is needed. Done
I would rewrite note j San Gabriel was renamed Venustiano Carranza between 1934 and 1993. The "between sounds like the date of renaming is sometime within a date range. Done
That's all. Solid work. I'll go ahead and support given the above is addressed. ~ HAL333
I'll be back to do a source review, but some non-source comments first:
An RFC recently passed a few months ago asking for captions on all tables (MOS:DTAB) Done
The pictures look rather odd on my screen, on my smaller screen they're stacked 2 on top of 3 on top of 1; on my bigger screen they're stacked 4 on top of 2–both leave huge white space, and looking very awkward. I don't really know what a solution for this would look like, but the current formatting is less than ideal
Part of the issue here is this is all happening before the table—a.k.a the main part of the article—creating a weird buffer in between
Yep I see what you mean. I experimented with a bunch of different formats, this seems to be the best one for my screen, how does the new format look for you? Mattximus (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's better but still a little awkward—I think the root of the problem is the second, Municipalities of Jalisco image. I see some of your other FLs (though I haven't checked the all) don't have such a map, perhaps remove? Though it is a cool map, the fact that its without labels for the various municipalities makes its actual helpfulness negligible imo. Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Done[reply]
This is very strange, I see nothing in the code indicating the removal of the default TOC. I have no idea why it was removed. Do you know how to get it back? Mattximus (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe articles with 3 or less sections makes the TOC not show up, in that sense I would suppose it's alright to not have one. However, if you're so inclined, you could add __FORCETOC__ or for a horizontal one, simply, add {{horizontal TOC}} anywhere. Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I tried adding the FORCETOC and I see now why the default is no TOC with 3 sections, it looks kinda funny. But I don't hold a strong opinion. I'm inclined to just leave it off as the default recommends. Mattximus (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2021 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
It may seem like a niche list to work on, but it has a purpose, or at least had one. Beethoven's 250th anniversary was last year and I was trying to get this as the TFL (for 17 December) but only got as far as a DYK... Oh well. Anyways, Beethoven's central status in the history of Western classical music has made him the subject of a lot of monuments. And I mean a lot—so this is a dynamic list; regardless, I'm confident I have entries for the most important and well-known monuments. Another point of interest might be the 45 or so busts by Antoine Bourdelle; I opted to limit them in a separate list as to not overwhelm the main list with entries by them. The list should be fully sortable. Thanks in advanced to any who review. Aza24 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dynamic list template should go before the list, not at the top of the page
I think a more appropriate title would be List of sculptures of Ludwig van Beethoven. Like the Beethoven House has eight sculptures of him, but they aren't all individually monuments. "Monument" is not necessarily a synonym for "three-dimensional artwork of a person".
The "Type" category isn't that clear: all of these are sculptures, including the busts and statues, so there shouldn't necessarily just be a subset of them called sculptures. E.g. it seems to me the one at Plaza Lavalle looks like it would be a relief, and at Alter Zoll is a statue. I guess some of them aren't as categorizable but this needs some work.
"arist" typo
" supposably" is not a word
Three links of types are actually links to the specific artwork. This is not expected and should perhaps be linked in the location instead.
I don't mind the splitting of the Bourdelle works (which are likewise generic artworks and not monuments per se), but seven out of "at least 45" is very incomplete. Although generally it may be hard to say for sure "this list is complete" and that's permissible, this seems quite inadequate for an FL. Unless it's it's redefined to be specially "monuments" and not just any old sculptures, which would remove several in the main list too, this section should be more comprehensive.
I take pause at the Unexecuted monuments. For example the Friedrich von Amerling and Drake ones were just an alternate proposal to the one by Hähnel that was chosen. Surely many of the other monuments went through multiple design proposals too, so this also suggests a greater degree of incompleteness. They should be included at Beethoven Monument but I'm not so sure about here.
Reywas92 many thanks for your comments. I've addressed your minor ones (though I will note that supposably is a word—but certainly not the right one, in this case).
I will ponder over the unexecuted monuments suggestion, though most of these are important enough (e.g. they have some history behind them, perhaps I add some notes to each of them?) that I would advocate their inclusion.
Yes notes are nice
For the Bourdelle works I actually forgot that I only had 7 (they're hard to find, as there's not list of them anywhere I could find) so I will surely add plenty more when I have time.
As for the other two points (type & article name) you seem to be stumbling onto two problems I've pondered over myself, but struggled to find a satisfactory conclusion, so maybe we can help each other here:
For type, my goal here is primarily to be able to sort busts, reliefs and (probably) statues; as you say some are ambiguous, so I've opted for the equally ambiguous "sculpture", any advice here would be appreciated, but I'm really not sure if there is going to be a perfect way to go about this.
Maybe whatever can't fit into the other categories would be "other sculpture"?
The name used to be List of statuary of Ludwig von Beethoven but I moved it. I would disagree with your interpretation of the word "monument"—OED says it is a "A statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event." which seems to cover the content... I'm not opposed to changing it to "sculptures" should that be a more direct title, but I would aim for keeping the reliefs. Busts and Statues are surely sculptures; our relief article says it's a "sculptural technique" so I am left unsure. - Aza24 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, statues with pedestals and plaques or other public commemoration would be a monument, but the regular sculptures and depictions don't quite fit that, like not every sculpture in a museum is a monument. Yes, reliefs are definitely sculptures to be included.
Reywas92, sorry for my untimely update. I believe I've addressed all of your comments now; I pondered over adding notes, but decided such information would be better for the artist's articles, and it looks odd to have notes for the unexecuted, but not the executed. They're all included in the lead anyways. Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these so far HAL333, I've addressed the second and last; I would say no to the separate column thing (only 5–8 have articles) and they are linked in the type column, which is why not all the entries have links there. Aza24 (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is needed, but should there be sources for the explanations of the paintings and painters in "See also"?
I've removed the portrait painters, they were probably a little excessive! I've replaced the other two descriptions with ones that use the short descriptions of the respective articles (as described in WP:SEEALSO), which I don't think need references. Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is note d needed if you already mention it in the lede? (Up to you in the end)
I like the change of title to "List of sculptures of Ludwig van Beethoven", which better reflects the scope.
Presumably Karlsbad would be a more appropriate name for Karlovy Vary in 1929?
Changed
"A large number of busts reside in the Beethoven House" – MOS:ART advises against "currently resides in", and I think this is a bit too close to that. Possibly change it to something like "There is a collection of busts of the composer in the Beethoven House"?
Thanks for these, I'll add them and give you an update when I do, I had already gone through the German list and added all I could find sources for. Aza24 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's an online source for another Bourdelle here. This seems to be the book that covers all Bourdelle's works on the theme of Beethoven. This seems to be the current catalogue raisonné for the artist, and this seems to be the most recent one in English – in case either of these books is easier to get hold of than the first. I appreciate that these would be very difficult to check at the moment. Is every relevant sculpture currently at List of works by Antoine Bourdelle covered here?
I looked around for a catalogue raisonné as well, but found them not easily available. I've added the one you found and yes I had gone through the works list. Aza24 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything to be said (in the lede, not the list itself) about mass-produced busts of Beethoven? They do seem to be "iconic", and they certainly come up a lot in pop culture: 1, 2, 3. Ham II (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay Ham II, I looked in a book about Beethoven sculpture and couldn't find anything about the pop culture appearances. I think I've addressed your other comments though, and added the appropriate works. Aza24 (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I moved this page to correspond with how the main page got renamed after being nominated for FL. Putting a placeholder comment here for now since I intend to assess the images among other things. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that these images are fine, or that I need to add different licensing or something? Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through them all and I don't think any are available. Since they're 3d objects, pictures of them have to be out of copyright, not just the object, so almost all the ones online aren't usable. Some had licenses on the websites, but they don't seem to be ones that are compatible with commons. Aza24 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there probably isn't a way around this—the bust hasn't been seen since 1970. I'm assuming these would be impermissible to upload? Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks copyrighted from what I can tell. Don't risk trying to post any of those on commons. Perhaps you could instead use one of them as an external link (similar to the 9 others used) in place of the one with subpar lighting, or adjust the brightness of the currently used upload. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the "internet.beethoven.de" bits within citations; they're redundant when you already have Beethoven House listed
Similarly, just use Classic FM without the "classicfm.com", CARLI Digital Collections Home without "collections.carli.illinois.edu", Scala Archives without "scalarchives.com", etc.
For these two, if its OK with you I'd rather keep them, for consistency's sake with the situation as a whole (i.e. having "website" and "publisher" for all non-news refs)
Perhaps I should've been more explicit: I was saying all situations of "(insert publication)" and "(insert publication.com)" should just name the publication title in a non-URL format. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're closer now. I'd also remove the instances of "collections.carli.illinois.edu", "necmusic.edu", "statues.vanderkrogt.net", and "ohara.or.jp" when already respectively covered by the use of CARLI Digital Collections Home, New England Conservatory of Music, "Statues – Hither & Thither", and Ohara Museum of Art. There's also still a few "beethoven.de" bits that aren't needed since Beethoven House covers them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I vastly underestimated how many images would be featured here (61 uploads and 9 external links, giving a grand total of 70). It's by far the most I've ever seen used in one Wikipedia article! While there's some work to do here, I believe you can get it up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following the image improvement and ref adjustments, I give my support for the nomination and media review passes. While I would also prefer not to use an image multiple times here, that's not enough to keep me from saying it's ready to become FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the little flags, especially since at Beethoven's (and some artists') time, these flags didn't yet exist.
My rationale is that the location column might be confusing otherwise when sorted. Usually when columns are sorted, one expects to see a clear group of items, but since these are sorted by country (and the specific location or city is put first) I was concerned that this might not be obvious enough without the flags. Maybe this makes sense? Otherwise, if you still disagree, I'm open to removing.
Well, we are used to sorting by year having a date fist, and by surname, having a given name first. You could also explain the sort. For me, the little flags are both sometimes wrong in history, and always a little coloured distraction from the artwork, but that may be just me.
I wonder if we could have a link from the introduction to the monument in the table, instead to other articles, which could be reserved to the table entries. Just an idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's tempting... but I'd rather not complicate the table anymore, if that's okay...?
I'll tempt you further by doing it for one. It won't change the table appearance, so be only additional bits in edit mode.
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.
Imelda Staunton is an English actress. Recognised internationally for portraying Dolores Umbridge in the Harry Potter film series, Staunton has earned numerous accolades in her forty-year career including four Olivier awards for her work in London theatre. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1982, Staunton debuted on West End" => "In 1982, Staunton debuted in the West End"
"Staunton starred in the 1998 romantic period comedy Shakespeare in Love and her work in the film garnered her the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture which she shared with the ensemble" - not mad on the wording here - I haven't seen that film for many years, but my recollection is that her part was not particularly major, so I think saying she "starred in" the film is overstating it a bit (five stars are shown on the poster in our article on the film and she isn't one of them). Also the rest of the sentence makes it sound like she was the main recipient of the prize and then the last bit seems a bit like an afterthought of "oh and by the way she had to share it with the rest of the cast". Altogether this makes it seem like her role was bigger than it was and that she was a more significant recipient of the award than she was. I'd be tempted to leave this out of the lead altogether and just start with the first film for which she won awards in her own right.
"In 2007, Staunton received international recognition" - surely she received international recognition in 2004 when she won multiple major awards in the UK, Europe, Canada and the US?
Is the wording "international mainstream attention" okay? Beacuse what I meant was earning a greater degree of fame outside the arthouse indie/film festival circuit, among the audience who only visit the movie theatres for blockbusters. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Staunton's other television credits include" - I don't think any previous TV credits have been mentioned, so now referring to her "other TV credits" is odd
"After featuring mostly in plays in West End" => "After featuring mostly in plays in the West End"
Also, according to our article on her, she has acted in 38 films in the 2000s (assuming that means the whole period since 2000), so I don't think saying that she "featur[ed] mostly in plays in the West End throughout the 2000s", as it seems she has done far more film acting than theatre acting since 2000
Changed the structure a bit to "While Staunton's work on the stage during the 2000s comprised of starring roles in mostly plays in the West End, she went on to receive widespread acclaim afterwards for her performance in the..." and changed an earlier sentence to "For her portrayal of Alma Reville Hitchcock" due to the repetitive use of the word performance. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "Alongside her film work, Staunton starred in a number of plays in the West End in the 2000s, and received widespread acclaim for her performance in..." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the notes are complete sentences, so they don't need full stops
Lead: add the films' year after their names, like you did with Vera Drake;
But won't that look redundant? "In 2007, Staunton received international mainstream recognition for playing the antagonist Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)..." Jovian Eclipse (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox: there's nothing when I click the show button, fix it;
Should I list only the more prestigious awards there or everything that already is there in the body? Or is there any way to remove that thing altoghether if it's not needed? Jovian Eclipse (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References: not italicized: PBS, Official London Theatre, Fox News, CNN, BBC News, Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, Rotten Tomatoes, AARP, National Film Academy, Online Film Critics Society, Raidió Teilifís Éireann, IndieWire, WhatsOnStage.com;
More information to help locate source 32 would be great.
Now, here's the thing. The Wikipedia article has this url as the source for the information it has about the UK winners, which were added for the first time in 2009 in this edit. The link is permanently dead now (has been since as early as 2011). And unfortunately, the present Equity website only maintains its anuual reports record from 2006 and onwards, which do contain information regarding the respetive year's Clarence Derwent ceremony. The LA Times Envelope Archive only mentions the US winners for the year 1986. So, I'm really not sure what to do about this. Will happily remove it altogether it that's what is required to pass it to FL :) Jovian Eclipse (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not too concerned since there is another source that helps to verify it.
Indicate access for URLs – I know some sources, such as the LA Times, have limited access.
Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables are missing a caption (they have the line but it's empty).
Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the tables, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
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.
Unfortunately, I was not active here during ASIB era, but recently I have done some edits to improve and finally promote this list. It is very comprehensive, listing down all notable awards with reliable sources. I talked to Debyf, one of the top editors and he agreed to this nomination. A special thanks to him, IndianBio and Arlandria Ff for their effort to keep it updated during that time. GagaNutellatalk01:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"which was unprecedented in the award's history" => "which was unprecedented in the awards' history" (it refers to the history of the British Academy Film Awards, not of a singular award)
There are some issues with the sorting on the recipients column - everything starting with a quote mark sorts at the top, whereas the quote mark should be disregarded and it should sort based on the first actual word. Once you get beyond all the listings for the film's title, I can't figure out what's going on at all. Steven A Morrow sorts first, when that should be under M. Then after Erin Benach there's one entry for Bradley Cooper, which comes before Jay Cassidy and is separated from the rest of his entries. After Matthew Libatique there's one listing for Mary Vernieu, which should be under V. Karen Murphy and Ve Neill sort before Alan Robert Murray. Right at the end, after P. Scott Sakamoto, there's randomly one more entry for Steven A. Morrow and one for Tom Ozanich. Can you check all the sorting?
Sorting on the result column gives Won > Runner-up > Nominated > 10th > 5th > 4th > 3rd > 2nd. I would suggest that the numbered places should come before "nominated", and they should definitely sort in the correct numerical order.
@ChrisTheDude: thanks for your review. I have changed the apostrophe and the result column is right. On the second point, I believe it is a Wikipedia's problem, because if you take a look at other lists, like thisorthis one, they are FL but with this same problem. So I don't know how I can fix it, sorry. GagaNutellatalk03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other lists might have slipped through FLC with issues isn't really relevant. You need to use sorting templates to make things sort in the right order. So anything that starts with a quote mark should be changed eg "[[Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song)|Shallow]]" needs to be "{{sort|Shallow|[[Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song)|Shallow]]}}". As far as names go, {{sortname|Steven|A. Morrow}} is wrong, because the A is not part of his surname, so it should be {{sortname|Steven A.|Morrow}}. The listing for Tom Ozanich which jumps to the bottom is because no sortname template has been applied to his name at all and I suspect some of the others are the same. Hope this helps....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the standard way in which people's names are sorted. In the index of a book or in the telephone directory, for example, people's names are ordered based on their surname, not their forename -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should go Nominated > 10th > 5th > 4th > 3rd > 2nd > Runner-up > Won. If "Won" is at the bottom then the numbers should go in descending order, not ascending (i.e. counting down towards finishing in 1st place). Also, "nominated" is the lowest value, because that's not as good as finishing 2nd/3rd/etc, so it should come first -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I took a look at other FL lists and they're the same as this one. It's sorted in alphabetical order, not for what it's worth, just like the rest of the columns. So starting with the numbers, going to the letter N then W is correct. GagaNutellatalk21:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Just one minor comment: I don't think everyone would know what RTHK stands for so list the publisher as "Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK)".--NØ06:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick Ctrl+F search, it looks like there are only 93 wins, but the infobox lists 106. Double-check the infobox to make sure it matches the table. This was my mistake – I forgot about runner-up, 2nd/3rd/... place, and so on – so the comment is irrelevant.
Source 8 is misrepresented (at least when I read it); Alfonso Cuarón received six nominations for Roma, so implying that Cooper's five nominations were a record is misleading. It was simply the combination of awards that was unique. Reword this so that the wrong implication isn't there.
The Category column has sorting issues for "Behind the Scenes" Promo, The Best Selling Soundtrack Album (should sort by "Best"), and The Don LaFontane Award for Best Voice Over (should sort by "Don").
For the Clio Awards and Promax Awards, it would make more sense to use templates like {{won|place=gold}} in the Result column instead of writing "Gold Winner" in the Category column.
Guild of Music Supervisors Awards and PGA Awards don't need to specify "for A Star is Born".
Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption.
Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
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.
This was a rescue of an un-sourced filmography created in 2005, with very little context or sourcing since then. Given that Humphrey Bogart was an iconic figure during his lifetime, and a film legend ever since, I decided to clean this up and source it. Let's see how it measures up by FLC standards. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments
Don't have time for a full review right now, but two things that immediately jump out are as follows:
There is no reason for the abbreviation "misc" to be used in a section heading - write the word in full
Can you clarify? MOS:LEADCITE This lede is a recap of the rest of the article, which is extensively sourced. I've never been asked to source a lede before, but I've been advised to remove citations from ledes. — Maile (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you need a source for his lifespan, the bit about the National Film registry, etc. Basically, just anything which isn't sourced later in the article. ~ HAL33319:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll deal with this after I take care of your other suggestion to make it more interesting. But the National Film registry is already sourced in the body. I'll double check it all after the revamping of the lead.— Maile (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the chronological image placement. I would make the highest quality on the lede, place theatre images in the Broadway section, and Hollywood images in the film section.
The United States Postal Service honored Bogart in 1997, at ceremony at Grauman's Chinese Theatre unveiling Bogart's stamp as part of the postal service's Legends of Hollywood series. --> "The United States Postal Service honored Bogart in 1997, at a ceremony at Grauman's Chinese Theatre unveiling Bogart's stamp as part of the "Legends of Hollywood" series."
"He formed Santana Productions in 1948, with the company's 1950 production of In a Lonely Place chosen by the National Film Registry in 2007 for permanent preservation as "culturally, historically or aesthetically" significant" - source?
"Occasionally Bogart made a few public fund-raising/patriotic appearances on film" - you don't need both "occasionally" and "a few"
Done
"the National Broadcasting Company, later predecessor of American Broadcasting Company [ABC] in 1943–1945" - firstly "later predecessor" makes no sense. And secondly, I am no expert on US television, but aren't NBC and ABC rival networks? Rather than one being a predecessor of the other?
Question: ChrisTheDude This is why the Blue Network is linked, and its article is well sourced. Perhaps you can suggest a better wording, and the history is pretty detailed. Please see the infobox there. NBC owned two networks, NBC and Blue Network, the later of which was launched January 1, 1927. In January of 1945 it was calling itself "The Blue Network of the American Broadcasting Company" and six months later was just calling itself American Broadcasting Company. The splitting off had something to do with Federal anti-trust violations, but I don't know the legal details. In December of that year, the FCC approved the licensing transfer from NBC to exclusively ABC. So, kind of complicated. I'm open to suggestion on the wording. — Maile (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Air date column in the radio/TV table doesn't sort correctly (it puts all the ones that just show a year first, and then all the ones that show a month afterwards)
Question: ChrisTheDude just scanning through what you wrote above. As noted in the above from HAL much (if not all) of what you are requiring as sourced in the lead, is actually quite well sourced in the body. Isn't the lead just supposed to be a recap of what is already sourced in thee article? Feedback on this please. — Maile (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, you are quite correct. I was typing the comments as I read through the article and should have gone back and deleted those when I found the sources but I forgot to..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
"Note that the opening and closing dates of the below productions are not listed.": It would be better to either remove that or say something about what data isn't available from the sources (apart from what you already say).
1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on some columns and sampled the redirects in the tables.
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 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. The images are outstanding, but I don't know much about the finer points of copyright.
6. It is stable.
Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list noms every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts
The last time that IBDB came up on WP:RSN it wasn't positive [13]. That being said, I can look past this since it is ran by The Broadway League.
The AFI catalogue passes my bar due to how they list their sources
In a spot check of a listed movie, I don't see Bogart's name [14]
Guerillero regarding the Always Together AFI source, you have to look at the bottom right-hand side of the Credits tab. There is a little + sign you need to click, which unfolds more of the list. He's next to last at the bottom of the list as "character in movie". Must have been one of those cameo things, but he's there. Re IBDB, it's an official database of the National Trade Association for the Broadway Theatre Industry. Where human beings are involved, errors can happen, but human beings are ultimately who inputs all data on sourcing. — Maile (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2021 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating the 2012 London Summer Olympics medal table for featured list promotion because I've feel that this list meets the criteria for inclusion. These Olympic games are personally my second favorite edition behind the 1984 Summer OlympicsinLos Angeles. This is my first non-film related list I am attempting to submit for featured list status and I based the format on other Olympic medal tables that became FL. Please feel free to make comments or make adjustments yourself. Birdienest81 (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image alt texts don't need to open with "Photo of..."
Fixed: Removed instances of "Photo of..."
"At least 86 nations..." → "86 nations..." (since we know the exact number)
"Fixed: Removed "At least..."
"In prior Olympics, however, Montenegrin athletes have won medals as nationals of Serbia and Montenegro and of Yugoslavia." – source needed
Fixed: Added citation using article from official 2020 Summer Olympics website stating The Balkan nation had previously competed under Yugoslavia, the Independent Olympians and Serbia Montenegro from 1920 to 2004. Also added footnote about Montenegrin athletes competing under the Independent Olympians name.
"Serbian athletes have previously won gold medals as nationals of Serbia and Montenegro and of Yugoslavia." – source needed (source 10 doesn't state this)
Fixed: Added article backing up fact. It is located at the bottom of the article under 7PM. It reads: "The former Yugoslavia won three gold medals..." Dropped the "Serbia and Montenegro" part since this fact is only referring to Serbia in the context of wining gold medals, and Serbia and Montenegro won zero gold medals in 2004 (the only time the nation competed under that name).
I would include the comments about Maryam Yusuf Jamal in footnote b instead of breaking up the list of nations with parentheses.
Fixed: Moved Jamal comment into the footnote.
NOC needs to be spelled out in the lead or replaced with a different word (i.e. nation).
"Fixed: Changed NOC to nation in the lead.
When used in table headers, use Template:Abbr to state that NOC means National Olympic Committee.
"Fixed: Used template to denote acrony.
What is your source for the medal table? You say it's based on information from the IOC, but you don't link that information.
Fixed: Added source from Olympedia which is a spinoff of Sports Reference. Previously the authors of Olympedia published Olympics stats on Sports Reference, but they spun off their own website in May 2020. This website explains it all here.
Don't use smaller text for the tables in "Changes in medal standings" for accessibility reasons.
"Fixed: Removed font style template to restore text to regular size.
Period needed before sources 35, 61, and 63
"Fixed: Added periods before the sources.
The table "List of possible changes in medal standings" feels like a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, since there is little sourcing and it is unclear if/how the medals will be reallocated in those events.
Fixed: Removed table accordingly.
I'd suggest archiving sources where possible using IABot.
Fixed: Ran the IABot and it archived sources wherever possible.
Pedantically, the silver-coloured countries on the map are not countries that won at least one silver medal. They are countries that won at least one silver medal and no golds.
Fixed: Changed sentence to indicate that silver-coloured nations won at least one silver without any gold medals.
Need a comma after United Kingdom in the first para
"Fixed: Added a comma after "United Kingdom".
A sentence shouldn't start with a number written as digits, so is it possible to reword the first sentence of para 2?
Fixed: Added the word "overall" to the beginning of the sentence.
"Previously, Montenegrin athletes have competed" => "Previously, Montenegrin athletes had competed"
"Fixed: Changed "have" to "had."
Same for Serbia
"Fixed: Changed "have" to "had."
Considering that the "List of official changes by country" table takes up well over 50% of the article, it should absolutely be covered in the lead
"Fixed: Added two sentences regarding doping and the medal changes resulting from it.
All these image captions need sources for content not covered anywhere else in the article: China table tennis (that they defended the title), Pendleton (that it was the first ever Keirin event), Dutch hockey team (that they retained their title), US soccer (that it was their third straight title)
Fixed: Added sources from ESPN regarding factoids not covered in the body of the article.
"Kolodko would be later stripped her silver for doping" => "Kolodko would be later stripped of her silver for doping"
Fixed: Added "of" in between "stripped" and "her".
"confirmed that Russian discus thrower Darya Pishchalnikova had been banned for 10 years, and they stripped of her silver medal" => "confirmed that Russian discus thrower Darya Pishchalnikova had been banned for 10 years, and stripped of her silver medal"
Fixed: Changed sentence that now reads "On 1 May 2013, the IOC banned Russian discus thrower Darya Pishchalnikova from competition for ten years, and stripped of her silver medal in the women's discus throw after testing positive for oxandrolone (an anabolic steroid).
That still isn't grammatically correct. If the first clause is "On 1 May 2013, the IOC banned Russian discus thrower Darya Pishchalnikova from competition for ten years," then the second should be "and stripped her of her silver medal....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Added a "her" between "stripped" and "of."
"imposed a one-year suspension on a 4 × 100 m relay team member Tyson Gay" => "imposed a one-year suspension on 4 × 100 m relay team member Tyson Gay"
Fixed: Removed unneeded "a" between "on" and "4".
Note against women's 20km walk doesn't span all the rows it should
Fixed: Changed rowspan to 3.
"The IOC had requested Iinternational Wrestling Federation" - need "the" after requested, also the word International is spelt incorrectly
Fixed: Added "the" after "requested" and corrected the word "International."
"after she tested positive of dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol)" => "after she tested positive for dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol)"
Fixed: Changed "of" to "for"
"Austra Skujytė was latered awarded" - later, not latered
Fixed: Changed "latered" to "later".
"the Russian 4 × 400 metres relay women's team was disqualified due doping of Antonina Krivoshapka" => "the Russian 4 × 400 metres relay women's team was disqualified due to doping by Antonina Krivoshapka"
Fixed: Added "to" in between "due" and "doping".
"On 9 November 2015, WADA Independent report" => "On 9 November 2015, a WADA independent report"
Fixed: Added a missing "a" between "2015" and "WADA."
"Thus, Ekaterina Poistogova retained her Olympic 2012 medal at women's 800 metres athletic event" => "Thus, Ekaterina Poistogova retained her Olympic 2012 medal in the women's 800 metres athletic event"
Fixed: chaned "at" to read "in the."
"Gamze Bulut was banned for doping and lost its Olympic silver medal" - seems a bit harsh to call her "it" :-)
Fixed: Changed "it" to "she".
"on 17 August 2015, the Court of Arbitration for Sport Turkish athlete Aslı Çakır Alptekin lost the Olympic title and serve an eight-year ban for blood doping" - quite a few words missing here I think......?
Fixed: Sentence now reads: "Previously, on 17 August 2015, the Court of Arbitration for Sport stripped Turkish athlete Aslı Çakır Alptekin of her medal and imposed an eight-year ban on her for blood doping."
"Nevertheless, the IOC decided award Tomashova and Aregawi with the silver and bronze medals" => "Nevertheless, the IOC decided to award Tomashova and Aregawi the silver and bronze medals"
Fixed: Added the preposition "to" in between "decided" and "award."
"Medals in these events have not been redistributed yet." - give a specific date at which this statement is true (this statement appears twice)
Fixed: Removed the phrase because there are no credible sources to pinpoint the exact date which made the statement true without intruding into Wikipedia:SYNTH territory.
@SNUGGUMS:Fixed--I changed two of the images where the link gives a 404 error into ones that have working links. As for the medals map, I'm asking the WP:FLC administrators if they know offhand about the usage rights or if they know someone else who is well versed with such issue.
I'm confused what the suspected issue is with 2012 Summer Olympics medal map.png? I'm not seeing anything that would change it from a free-use image. The base world map is a CC-BY-SA map used for tens of thousands of files across wikipedia, and it's been colored in by a few editors, retaining the CC-BY-SA license for all revisions. There's nothing wrong with editing "another user's upload" for CC-BY-SA images, that's why we retain all of the old revisions with the editor's name (BY) and under the same license (SA). --PresN13:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the map is fine and the image review passes. I just didn't know whether recoloring a prior edition affected copyright status. Additionally, I now support the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need "Retrieved 24 February 2021" in the external links? Seems weird to only have it for one of them
Fixed: Removed date in External Links section since it only referring to the website as a whole.
ref 7 missing author
Fixed: Added Ben Snider-McGrath as author.
ref 38 is using a different template than the other refs I believe (for some reason the date isn't after the author)
Fixed: Moved date from "issue" paramter to "date" parameter in template.
there's a lot of inconsistency with news sites, Reuters is italicized once, but not the other time—this is just one example, it should be standardized throughout
"Fixed: Moved news organizations that are not italicized (i.e.: Associated Press, Reuters, and Yahoo Sports) from work parameter to agency parameter in order to de-italicize the title.
can you translate the date on ref 58?
Fixed: Translated『čer』into June.
ref 67 seems to be missing a publisher or some equivalent parameter, ref 71 and 73 as well
Fixed: Added Court of Arbitration for Sport as publisher of material.
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.
With 64 of these lists at FL and another having multiple supports and a completed source review, here's #66 for your consideration. I suspect that people may be getting bored of these lists by now, but don't worry, we're lurching close to the end of the country number one song lists project (at which point I can start nominating the country number one album lists mwah-ha-ha :-D). A notable first in this year was the first number one to feature the sound of the pedal steel guitar, an instrument which for many people has come to embody the sound of country music.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption.
Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`. We haven't been the best about enforcing this, which is why I'm bringing it up now on list #66 :(
1. The prose is fine. I found a full stop to add; that was it. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any 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.
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.
With 64 of these lists now at WP:FL, here's the latest in the series for your consideration. An interesting fact about this particular year is that literally every single artist to reach number one has been considered important enough to the history of the genre to be inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame. Your feedback will be most gratefully received -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No issues here. As a side note, AllMusic is being discussed at the RSN (here)—though it looks like most editors agree it is reliable—If you're interested, I'm sure your input would be most welcome, as you seem to have much experience with the site. Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – my only comment is that "Artist(s)" could be simplified to "Artist" in the column headers, as all of the charting acts were solo artists, but if all of your other charts use "Artist", I would keep it the same for consistency. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. All the other lists use "artist(s)", so I'd prefer to keep it for the sake of consistency, hope that's OK! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB):The table is missing a caption (also mentioned in your other extant nomination).
Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on some columns and sampled the links in the table.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any 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. The images are great.
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.
Number five in the series. Once again, thanks to HawkAussie for their work on the table conversion. The format follows the same style as the previous four lists which have all gone up for FL status. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Their first match of the period was a 3–2 victory over Northern Ireland secured a...." - think there's at least one word missing here
"The second leg at Ninian Park proved controversial while crowd trouble led Wales...." - was the game controversial because of the crowd trouble? The word "while" kinda implies that it was controversial for a different reason but then you don't say what that was......
"For the 1976 tournament, quarter-finals were played" - should this be "the quarter-finals"?
"....with the finals hosting only the semi-finals and beyond" - reads very oddly - the finals hosted the semi-finals?
"The 1966–67 and 1967-68 British Home Championship was used" => "The 1966–67 and 1967-68 British Home Championships were used"
"would qualify for the UEFA Euro 1968" - the Euro 19XX name style was not in use at the time, this should just say 1968 UEFA European Football Championships. Also, this note is missing its full stop.
Having a webpage covering Scotland's international results as a general ref seems a bit weird
'"Between 1960 and 1979 the side played 132 matches" table starts with match number 234 and ends 351. That's 118 matches inclusive, right? What's not quite right here?
I also count 31 wins, not 30, but I might have made a mistake because...
... I've noticed that you can't sort by wins. I think the Score column should be "hidden sorted" to sort by best win down to worst win, then highest scoring draws down to 0-0's, then least bad loss to worst loss...
When I started these lists, I used the same format as the existing FLs. At this point, being five lists into a series with only two to go, I'm loathe to be restructuring at this point. Is this likely to be a deal-breaker? Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I have is that the lead talks about numbers of wins (hence the comment above), it does seem strange that you can sort by the result that you give in the key, literally no way of sorting the table by "success" which does (in retrospect on the other reviews) seem like an oversight.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think attendance should be right aligned.
May I ask why? I'm viewing on mobile so spacing issues are always slightly different, but the attendance column appears to match the positioning of the other columns for me? Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I've added the sort function in for the scorelines now but I'm having a little trouble with the centre-alignment of the attendance column. I can't seem to figure if I'm adding it wrong or if the mobile view is causing it to look different. Would you be able to add it to the first listing so I can do the rest in the correct manner? Kosack (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only issue I could find is that Italy comes before Iran in the head-to-head table. Other than that, this is an exemplary list and deserves featured status. Nice work. NapHit (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2021 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Can't see any reason to fix the widths of the columns. In particular there's no reason for the refs columns to be so massively wide, and the huge year column in the acting table looks ridiculous
Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables are missing column and rowscopes, and captions.
Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
Each column header should be marked with `scope="col"`, e.g. instead of `! Year` it should be `! scope="col" | Year
For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1992` it should be `!scope="row"| 1992`. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`
Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
I could be wrong, but I think there's an expectation at WP:FLC, among many reviewers at least, that the usual kinds of table columns will be sortable. Look at ... well, the tables in any of the other nominations to see how the coding works. The only tricky part is making sorting work correctly when it doesn't make sense to sort according to the first word ... either use {{sort}} and {{sortname}}, or see my nom (List of plant genera named for people (A–C)) for how to use "data-sort". (Chris and PresN do know what they're doing, and I see they didn't ask for it ... if you'd rather not do it, that's fine, but in general, it will be harder to get reviewers at FLC if you don't, I think.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on some columns and sampled the links in the tables.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The UPSD tool frowns on Medium.com. Some websites, such as Bloody Disgusting, I'm not qualified to assess. Otherwise, UPSD isn't indicating 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. The images are great.
6. It is stable.
Qualified Support ... qualified since I'm really not the best guy to assess some of the sources. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list noms every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 5 April 2021 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This list is about the 71 seasons of the FIA Formula One World Championship that have been held thus far. I have redone this list and hope that it meets the necessary criteria to become a featured list. Looking forward to all comments in this review. MWright96(talk)17:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"a series of races, known as Grands Prix, held usually on purpose-built circuits, and in a few cases on closed city streets,[4] the most prestigious of which is the Monaco Grand Prix in Monte Carlo" - wording is ambiguous as to whether Monte Carlo is the most prestigious of the street GPs or of all GPS, might be worth clarifying
Note a - might be worth adding a few words to explain why
Apologies, but "Grands Prix, held usually on purpose-built circuits, and in a few cases on closed city streets, the most prestigious event of the year which is the Monaco Grand Prix" doesn't really make sense gramatically. Assuming that you mean that Monte Carlo is the most prestigious of the street GPs specifically, I would suggest "Grands Prix, held usually on purpose-built circuits, and in a few cases on closed city streets; the most prestigious of the street circuits is the Monaco Grand Prix" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No image illustrating the article, although it's unclear what image one would use. Possibly a picture of a 1950 Formula One car alongside a 2020 Formula One car?
Opening statement is potentially contentious. Qualifying that you mean world championship seasons specifically in the first sentence may be worthwhile.
Not familiar with ChicaneF1 as a source. I see that it is used on some FA-class Formula One related articles however. Will assume in good faith that it's a reliable source unless someone wants to challenge that.
A secondary/independent source on the FIA stuff may be prefereable but isn't really necessary as it's not a contentious statement to someone who knows about the subject.
ESPN source backs up the potentially contentious nature of the opening statement, as it suggests that the first Formula One season may have been in 1946 (although some sources will say 1947 or 1948) with 1950 being the first world championship season. The ESPN source is somewhat ambiguous on the matter, to the degree that it might look self-contradictary to someone without background knowledge.
You may want to add a "not a typo" template to uses of "Grands Prix" since occasionally drive-by editors/bots try to correct it to "Grand Prixs" or "Grand Prix".
Can't access book source (ISBN 0-75258-766-8) but the statement is uncontentious so I'll take it on good faith.
I would change "the most prestigious of the street circuits is the Monaco Grand Prix held in Monte Carlo" to say "the most prestigous of the street races is the Monaco Grand Prix" as the circuit is the Circuit de Monaco and I'm not sure if it's necessary to specify Monte Carlo here. Source is behind a paywall but the statement isn't contentious so I'll take it on good faith.
We know that the minimum number was eight in 2020. It presumably wasn't in 1950 when there were less than eight races. Some sort of "as of" qualifier may make this clearer. Source checks out.
2020 only visited Europe and Asia so a statement regarding force majeure may be worthwhile here. Similarly 1950 only had races in Europe and North America.
Explanatory footnote regarding the Indianapolis 500 may be sensible when talking about the number of Grands Prix in a season. If I wanted to be pedantic then I'd argue in favour of using the term『Grandes Épreuves』in the footnote but it's probably not necessary.
A secondary source which shows that the rules have always been as they are in the current regulations may be preferable to using the 2020 sporting regulations as a primary source, but again the statements being sourced are not contentious ones.
"Different car make/engine combinations" is a slightly awkward wording. Personally I would word this as "different combinations of car and engine makes" or "different combinations of chassis and engine makes".
Explanatory footnote regarding the 1981 changes may be worthwhile (particularly regarding the Constructors' Championship), provided a source can be found.
Another book source I can't access (ISBN 0-946132-63-1), but I will take it on good faith as to my knowledge based off of other sources I've read in the past the statement is true.
Forix/8W lists European Champions alongside World Champions. Not massively relevant to this article but I do think a mention of the status of the World Drivers' Championship as the effective successor to the pre-Second World War European Driver's Championship may be warranted, provided suitable sourcing is available.
I agree that "a total of 1,035 Formula One World Championship races have been held" is the clearest wording for the average reader. Again a footnote somewhere explaining the somewhat convoluted history of the World Championship may be warranted, but it shouldn't be given undue weight lest it prove distracting and confusing.
Checking the stats against sources they all seem correct.
I think it would be better to say that "Over 71 seasons there have been 33 participants from 14 different nationalities who have won the World Drivers' Championship. Over 63 seasons there have been 15 teams representing 5 individual nations that have claimed the World Constructors' Championship." than the current phrasing, which puts the "71 seasons" statistic nearer to the Constructors.
The list itself is a little on the bare side. I understand that there's a fine balancing act to manage between not including enough information and bombarding the reader with confusing miscellanea, but maybe some information about when the first and last race of each season was held and how many countries held races in each season would be appropriate, providing it can be sourced.
Unsure if it's correct to say that McLaren had 15 points deducted at the 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix as to my knowledge they were never awarded those points to begin with. The source given appears to align with my belief.
There's nothing major keeping this from featured status. It needs a little bit more work but if that gets done then I'd happily support this gaining the status.
Piece of cake: comments resolved, striked to support.
First sentence is hard to navigate. The "the highest class" fragment follows "Formula 1", so it's safe to assume that F1 is『the highest class of open wheeled auto racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA).』Then there's "motorsport's world governing body". Mind explaining the structure of this sentence?
"This can be declared invalid if the FIA grants F1 an waiver for its『long‐established use of the word “World”.』Should be ended with an end-quote. Per MOS, replace the curvies with apostrophes (').
"Different combinations of chassis and engine makes are considered to be different constructors for the purposes of the Championship. Constructors' Championship points are calculated by adding points scored in each race by any driver for that constructor." Duplicate use of ref 11.
That's all I have on this article. Well-composed, overall. As a short Image review, all have suitable license, appropriate captions, and have alt texts. GeraldWL07:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"World Championship" is written with and without capital letters throughout the lead - is it with (World Championship) or without (world championship)?
Almost all online sources are archived (which is good). Are you going to update some of the archived sources after each completed season, such as the first one?
Also: please note the table in this list does not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the cells of the primary (first) column should be tagged with scope="row", e.g. instead of `|align="center"| 1950` it should be `!scope="row" align="center"| 1950`; if you don't like the way that changes the formatting of the first column change `{|class="wikitable sortable"` to `{|class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"` at the top. --PresN16:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'and it can be declared a World Championship if the series visits at least 3 continents in that season according to the International Sporting Code.' change to 'The season can be declared a World Championship if the series visits at least 3 continents in that season according to the International Sporting Code.'
'Over 63 seasons, 15 teams representing 5 individual nations that have claimed the World Constructors' Championship with Ferrari ...' I think that is redundant here and there should be a comma after Championship.
Instead of having the sources at the bottom of the table, I'd include them next to the header at the top of the table.
This one is more of a personal preference, but I'd group the book references into a bibliography rather than put them together with the rest of the links. Looks cleaner to me and it's easier to see what book sources are used.
Made a few changes, to fix the bold issue, but other than that, the list in great shape and meets the criteria! Fine work! NapHit (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2021 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
InMad Men's pilot, Don Draper notes that『advertising is based on one thing — happiness.』Unfortunately, I can't come up with such a concise and elegant quip to explain the show to others, but what I can do – and what I've done – is bring this list up to FL standard to properly list its accolades so that others can better understand its achievements. The work I did was modeled on my West Wing FL nomination, taking this from an average page to what I believe is my best FL nominee to date. As always, any and all comments are appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - literally the only thing I could pick up on was.....if the awards are in alphabetical order, shouldn't the Primetime Creative Arts Emmys come before the Primetime Emmys.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted the Creative Arts Emmys to be separate since they're awarded at a separate ceremony, but I also thought the major Emmy awards should be listed first (kind of like the awards for Game of Thrones, though that one is admittedly different given its length and that the Emmys are in a separate table). In other words, if I had combined the major and Creative Arts Emmys, I would have still put the series, acting, writing, and directing awards first, and I wanted to keep that order after splitting the two. If you think it would be better to swap them, I'd be happy to do it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption.
Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
1. The prose is fine. I checked sorting on several columns in the table and sampled the redirects in the table; everything looks fine.
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 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. The one image isn't a copyright problem, per the "originality" criterion.
6. It is stable.
Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list noms every now and then, but if not, not a problem. They tend to be long.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 4 April 2021 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a full list of official matches played by the Gibraltar national football team since their acceptance into UEFA that I believe meets the FL criteria. The matches are grouped by the years they were played making it easy to navigate. As they started in 2013 there will be no need to split the article for a few years yet. Each entry is comprehensively detailed and referenced (one ref tag and a link to an external match report).
It is my first time nominating an article for featured status but I am prepared to do what I can. I did get the article peer reviewed first where Aza24 was kindly able to help. I look forward to the responses. — 6ii9 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"They first applied for UEFA membership" - not 100% clear who "they" are
"On 13 May 2016, Gibraltar was accepted [.....] after their original" - subject treated as both singular and plural within the same sentence
"These are the official results of the Gibraltar national football team since being accepted into UEFA in 2012" - the lead says this occurred in 2013
"Matches played before obtaining UEFA membership and unofficial matches and are not included." - this sentence does not make sense the first "and" should be "are"
That list was promoted ten years ago, so doesn't necessarily indicate current consensus. I'll leave this out here to see what other people think....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Football has its own manual of style, and looking at this section, it seems that the accepted way to list match results is with those templates. Also, I quickly scanned through similar lists in Category:National association football team results by team, and everything I saw as I scanned through them (minus the Welsh lists) uses that formatting, so I'm pretty much certain it's the standard. It does mean there is no sorting functionality, but I'm personally okay with it because it allows much more information to be included about individual matches that would either disappear or be awkwardly included in a list like the Welsh lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while my personal preference would be for the article not to contain dozens of collapsible templates, if it is deemed an acceptable format I am not going to oppose based on that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kosack's comment, I'm going to have to oppose on the tables. The collapsible tables may allow you to contain more information, but they do not meet WP:ACCESS. Users who need screen readers to use Wikipedia will not be able to read the page as well as users who are normal sighted. Kosack links to the discussion at WP:FOOTY which suggests that the tables used in the Wales ar preferable because they meet MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS. Unfortunately, as long as those tables are in use, I can't support the promotion of this list. NapHit (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Table looks in much better shape now, struck my oppose based on that. I think the key needs to be in a table too. Look at the Wales lists for an example. I am concerned about the references though. Firstly you need to use en dashes instead of the standard dashes for scorelines. Ref 13 is an example. Secondly, it's questionable whether some of the references are reliable or not. What makes yourgilbraltartv and footballgibraltar.wordpress.com reliable? NapHit (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of work has gone into the list since this comment. The sources have been replaced and I've gone through and fixed the dash issue. Happy to support now. NapHit (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Looking through the article, I do think that the table format is suitable in this featured list scenario as WP:ACCESS is a massive issue from this getting past the featured list challenge. I also do think that adding the cards is a bit of an overkill as you don't see many other articles (if any) in the national results section have the cards as well as the goals.
In terms of prose, I do feel its fine except the last three sentences in the prose as why is that needed here as that doesn't relate to the article either. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if anyone else is having this problem, but on my computer the score column cells are black-colored, which doesn't appear to be the intention and makes it hard for me to read the scores. I suggest changing the formatting to be like the Wales list linked above, as the colors appear without issue for me on that page.
@Giants2008: I do not have this issue. I have looked at the Wales list above and cannot see why that one renders correctly for you but this one does not. I can only assume it is the colours being used. 6ii9 (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made this table comparing the colours used in each of the lists. Are any of these cells rendering as black-coloured? --6ii9 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check all the sources for "behind closed doors" actually mention it. E.g. ref 59 for match 47 doesn't mention attendance at all.
The attendances are covered in the statistics within the reference section, the note on the main table header says "table information sourced from the references listed in the statistics section below". --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Score column sorts peculiarly, I'd expect it to start with "best wins" then go through draws to "worst losses".
At the moment it sorts by the number of goals scored by Gibraltar (then by the numbers of goals they conceded). Would it make more sense to sort by the result of the match (i.e. sort by wins, then draws, and then losses)? --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, what if we added an extra column for the results, i.e. Win, Draw or Loss. Then this can be sorted to show all the wins together, all the draws and all the losses? --6ii9 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2021 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done per consistency with three currently promoted lists (for Better Call Saul, BoJack Horseman, and Brooklyn Nine-Nine). The example you gave was promoted in 2008, so I'm not sure if it's still reliable or up to today's standards. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
