Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Flc)

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved in a timely manner; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or
  • reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting.

Once the director or a delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. It is recommended that the list have no other open discussions.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
Reviewing procedure

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Source reviews needed

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

[edit]

List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress

[edit]
Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third nomination of this list. Please be informed that the list is extensive, and I have made every effort to address the issues raised in the previous nomination, including improvements in table formatting, an explanation of how state boundaries have changed and been renamed, and the inclusion of reliable references. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Soccer seasons

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 09:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have (almost) run out of Seattle sports season lists, so I have decided to start looking at my sports from a level up, at the league level. MLS is almost finished with its 29th season and has had a well-documented history; this list was completely redone in a manner similar to the WNBA seasons list I made earlier this year. I am very open to modifications, as the list was hashed out without much in the way of direction. SounderBruce 09:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824

List of Buffalo Sabres seasons

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kline • talk • contribs 03:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With my profound interest and supporting of the Buffalo Sabres, I'd though I would do my duty and make this a featured list. Unfortunately for my beloved Sabres, they have gone on a 13-year postseason drought, which leads to some interesting statistics and backlash. This is my first rodeo, but hopefully won't be my last. Cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 03:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

This review is based off this version of the page.

Source review: Pending

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checked that sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Your citation wikilinking style is unclear to me. Are you intending to only link the first time a source is mentioned?
Not sure but it doesn't matter. Should be consistent now.
  • Ref 1 – Link doesn't work, might need to be tweaked
Done, changed url status to dead.
Done.
  • Refs 2 and 3 – Inconsistent formatting. Better to just use Hockey Reference as the website on both with no publisher listed
Done.
  • Ref 6 – The reference should be marked as subscription access, you can do with the |access=subscription parameter
Done.
  • Ref 8 – Is this the newest version of the record book that's available? NFL teams often have a pretty detailed media guide they release, and I can't find one for the Sabres, but I did find this for the Penguins as an example of what I'd personally look for if I was doing an NHL team seasons list.
The most recent version was published in 2018 and then discontinued. Replaced.
  • Ref 9 – Link to HockeyDB as a website instead of "The Internet Hockey Database" as the publisher
Done.
  • Refs 11, 13, and 20 – Need to be tagged as subscription access
Done.
Done.
  • Refs 14 and 17 – Is there a reason ESPN is listed as the publisher instead of website?
Not that I am aware of, changed to website.
Done.
  • Ref 16 – Link redirects when clicked, mark as dead or update link
Done.
  • Ref 16 – The archived link, which does work, shows an author named Ira Podell, add this, and Associated Press as the agency
Done.
  • Ref 17 – At the bottom of this source it says info from the AP was used in this report, not sure what to make of that personally, but felt I'd call it out so that we can ponder whether we should list AP as the agency or just let it be
It'd be nice if they specified what information was used but it seems like ESPN was the main writer of the story so I would leave it personally.
  • Ref 18 – Link to CNBC
Done.
  • Ref 19 – Add Tom Gulitti as the author
Done.
  • Ref 21 – Should be a note, not a reference
Done.
  • I'm not seeing the info on who the teams lost to in the playoffs
As in a reference showing the Sabres' playoff history?

That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, most concerns have been addressed. Kline • talk • contribs 17:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After significantly reworking List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse to ensure it was still FL-quality, I thought it appropriate to get the sequel's list promoted. Follows the usual style. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic places in Clutha District

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another New Zealand historic place list, and so soon!(Don't worry, I got clearance from Josh!) This one is quite a bit bigger than my others so far, clocking in at 63 sites. A bunch of these, however, are middens where there's not much info beyond their location. A lot of the Clutha District history deals with its 19th century gold rush, and since then it has basically remained a sleepy agricultural region. Hope you all enjoy! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Mutiny seasons

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my series of nominations for MLS-related lists, I'm nominating this list of the seasons for the defunct Tampa Bay Mutiny. This list follows a similar format to List of Chivas USA seasons and List of New England Revolution seasons. This is my second active list candidate, but the other (List of Chivas USA managers currently has two supports)). Brindille1 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824

Comments

[edit]


Delegate comment

As per Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Codification of existing rule: 8 items minimum, unfortunately, this list is too short to qualify as an FL. We've had an unofficial standard of 10 items for a long time, which we made an official standard of 8 items; at 6 + a total, this is too short either way. This does not imply that it needs to be merged into another list/article, but does mean that we'll be closing this nomination soon. --PresN 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic places in Tauranga

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of these New Zealand Heritage List nominations! This one's a bit bigger than the previous few, coming in at 30 entries. Tauranga is definitely one of the more obscure cities in New Zealand - it's a sleepy little town that seems to mainly attract retirees - but it has some interesting military and colonial history nevertheless! Thanks to all you reviewers :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Image caption end with a period.
That'd be against MOS:CAPTION unless it's a full sentence. -G
If a Wikimedian visits Tauranga and snaps some pics, most of these will get images. I want to leave the slots open for when/if that happens. - G
  • Images that don't have alt text should have alt text
Fixed, thank you for catching that. -G
  • Heritage New Zealand classification of sites on the New Zealand Heritage List / Rārangi Kōrero, in accordance with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, distinguishes between Category 1 ("places of special or outstanding historical or cultural significance") and Category 2 ("places of historic or cultural significance"). - first clause in the sentence should be shortened or broken into multiple sentences.
Done. - G
Brindille1 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brindille1: Thank you for the review! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brindille1 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Home to large Māori settlements during the precolonial era, European presence began" - there's some grammatical disagreement here - "European presence" wasn't home to large Maori settlements. Suggest "European presence began in the early 1830s in the area, which had been home to large Māori settlements during the precolonial era, as traders began settling around the shores of Tauranga Harbour."
  • "from 1908 to 1987, where it has since seen various business tenants" - "where" doesn't really work here. Suggest "from 1908 to 1987, and has since seen various business tenants"
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Reworded the first and implemented the latter! Thank you. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers all-time roster

[edit]
Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying this again. A few important things to note: (1) this list follows the format for all other NFL All-Time Rosters (see {{List of NFL players}} for the others). (2) These lists are quite large (this one is over 1,800 entries) and grows larger every season. To keep things manageable from an article size perspective and ease for updating, ancillary details like position are not included. These however can be found in other lists where those ancillary details are more important (i.e. List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks provides a person's college). (3) For somewhat of a precedent, Outline of lichens provides a recent FLC example of a list that is mostly just the mere listing of the list entries. I believe that list and this one meet the intent of WP:FLCR 3(a). I welcome any feedback and as always will work to address comments quickly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by the Pogues

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After countless lists of number ones, I thought I would try something different for my next FLC. I'd just been listening to the new 40th anniversary deluxe edition of the Pogues' debut album and decided to have a go at this one. I added a lead, images, and (I think) pretty much doubled the size of the list by adding all the songs that were not on the original versions of their seven studio albums. A couple of things I was not 100% certain about (and couldn't really find any guidance on) and am happy to change if people think I should:

  • Many songs were released only on singles (this is a band whose entire recording career took place when music was actually released physically, kids ) but later added to re-issued versions of albums anything up to 20 years later. I showed the album for these as "none" as their first release was not on an album, but I can change that and show the album (maybe with "20XX re-issue" in brackets) if that would be better.
  • Several dozen songs here were unreleased until they appeared in a 2008 box set. For all of these I showed the date as 2008 as that is when they were first released, but I can change that to the date they were recorded, although this might be inconsistent with others as (for example) all the tracks on an album released in January 1988 (as one of theirs was) were almost certainly not recorded in 1988.

Let me know your thoughts on the above and on anything else you think needs fixing. I've never worked on one of these lists before so there may be quite a lot that needs finessing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]
  • The band seems to be currently active according to their article, so should the introductory sentence say "have recorded" instead of "recorded"?
  • "which centred primarily on drinking culture and the seedier side of London life" - Is there a simpler term than seedier that might be easier for a general audience to understand? Although, personally I love the jargon, lol.
  • "If I Should Fall from Grace with God (1988) incorporated a wider of range of musical styles, including Turkish and Spanish influences on the tracks "Turkish Song of the Damned" and "Fiesta" respectively, and songs written by newer band members Philip Chevron and Terry Woods." - Just "wider range" should probably work. Also, there should probably be a comma before "respectively"
  • "After the 1996 album Pogue Mahone, which included versions of songs originally recorded by Ronnie Lane and Bob Dylan" - I would say "cover versions" instead of just versions
  • "The band also recorded songs not included on their seven studio albums, including many which appeared as the B-sides of singles." - "The band also recorded songs that did not appear on their seven studio albums, including many which appeared as the B-sides of singles." for minor repetition avoidance
  • "They contributed original songs to the soundtracks of the films Sid and Nancy and Straight to Hell" - maybe the years the films were released could be included in parenthesis
Great work as always! The table looks perfect to me.--NØ 15:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: - thanks for your review. All points addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Kyrgyzstan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone 08:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan has three World Heritage Sites and two tentative sites. Short and concise. Standard style. The list for Chile is already seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 08:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Tone, I am leaning towards opposing this based on WP:FLCR 3(c), as I don't believe this meets the criteria for a standalone list. With just 3 entries (or 5 depending on how you look at it), this could fairly easily be covered in a few paragraphs in Kyrgyzstan#Culture with this article redirected there. Would you help me understand why you think this is long enough to warrant a standalone list? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree on that front. It's also quite neatly covered under List of World Heritage Sites in Northern and Central Asia. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my cutoff is always 3 sites on the main list. Botswana is a FL even if it has two, but I was the co-nominator there. Latvia has 3+3. The problem with the general sites is that they are poorly maintained, have no descriptions, as well as no map. Until recently, sites with less than 3 sites typically did not have stand-alone articles but some editors decided to change that. I propose to keep 3 as a cutoff. Tone 08:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not sure I would support the other two lists you mentioned thought, although at least Botswana has 7 tentative sites. I am going to keep this on my watchlist but hold off on reviewing until more people have chimed in. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brindille1, replying up here so as not to clutter your review. I will note that both of the examples you provided had concerns raised about length, while the counties one was promoted 17 years ago (some thoughts have evolved since then). The EUFA one I can somewhat understand, an annual competition that is going to grow, part of a Featured Topic, etc. I think I am going to stay neutral on this one, noting my concerns about length but not being opposed to others supporting or the coords IAR. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Oppose per Gonzo. I just don't think this meets "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I disagree with the other comments opposing this on the basis of WP:FLCR 3(c). I think this is too detailed to be cleanly contained within Kyrgyzstan#Culture, and the argument that it should be contained in the regional list could apply to most of the World Heritage Site country lists. It also has five entries, which is comparable to some other World Heritage Site FL's, List of counties in Rhode Island, List of UEFA Conference League finals, and presumably other lists too.

  • Western Tien-Shan in lead should be wikilinked, as should China, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan
  • The Sulayman Mountain and the Silk Roads are cultural sites, the Western Tien-Shan is a natural site. -> The Sulayman Mountain and the Silk Roads are cultural sites, while the Western Tien-Shan is a natural site.
  • Silk Road is an ancient network -> The Silk Road is an ancient network, which would be consistent both with this list and the linked article on the Silk Road

Good work, Tone. Brindille1 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. I tend not to link countries with shared sites for some reason but I forgot what the reason was :) Tone 17:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brindille1 (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I do have concerns that this list is too short. While we don't have an absolute hard number of entries as a requirement, the general rule of thumb has been about 8 or more entries for FLC. Pinging PresN for their opinion on this, but I'm tempted/leaning towards marking this as unsuccessful based on not number of entries. I will of course happily defer to PresN if they believe it's fine at its current size, but I'm just not so sure. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Delegate comment

As per Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Codification of existing rule: 8 items minimum, unfortunately, this list is too short to qualify as an FL. We've had an unofficial standard of 10 items for a long time, which we made an official standard of 8 items; at 5, this is too short either way. This does not imply that it needs to be merged into another list/article, but does mean that we'll be closing this nomination soon. --PresN 16:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, fair enough, I'll keep this in mind for future nominations. Shall I withdraw it or will you close it using the bot? Tone 20:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Morelos

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it going. Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 50 (!!) lists of municipalities all around the world. Inspired by these real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standard, the project is taking shape. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews! Mattximus (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]
  • "The largest municipality by land area is Tlaquiltenango which spans 543.90 km2 (210.00 sq mi), and the smallest is Hueyapan with 19.20 km2 (7.41 sq mi)." I recommend commas be placed like so: "The largest municipality by land area is Tlaquiltenango, which spans 543.90 km2 (210.00 sq mi), and the smallest is Hueyapan, with 19.20 km2 (7.41 sq mi)."
  • Done
  • Cuautla in the lead should be linked.
  • Done
  • "responsible for providing all the public services for their constituents". Is it really true that all public services are provided by the municipality. The following sentences seem to say that the state and federal governments provide education, emergency fire and medical services, environmental protection and maintenance of monuments and historical landmarks. Could this be changed to ""responsible for providing public services for their constituents"?
  • Done - this is much better wording, thanks!
  • "On November 9, 2017, the state legislature approved the creation of four indigenous municipalities (Coatetelco, Xoxocotla, Hueyapan and Tetelcingo), effective on January 1, 2019. However, due to objections by authorities in Cuautla, it was decided on July 26, 2018 that Tetelcingo would not be included in the list of new municipalities." This should be reworded to say the most important part up front: that these are the newest municipalities in Morelos. Otherwise one wonders why four seemingly random municipalities are being mentioned.
  • Done - this is a good suggestion, I think I reworded it correctly
  • That's a good way to word it.
  • The incorporation date for the three municipalities created on January 1, 2019 should be sourced in the table as well. The current source at the column heading only goes as far as 1995.
  • Done

That's all. Steelkamp (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steelkamp for an excellent review. No issues, all suggestions made. Mattximus (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Tetelcingo would not be included in the list of new municipalities" - this is slightly confusing as it sounds like the municipality was still created, it just wasn't included on some list somewhere. So was it in fact not created at all?
  • Fixed wording.
  • Photo captions don't need full stops as they are not sentences
  • Fixed captions with better wording as well
  • "the oldest date in which the municipality is referred to is included" => "the earliest year in which the municipality is referred to is listed" would read much better
  • Fixed, agree that's much better wording.

Comments from OlifanofmrTenanant

[edit]

I'll take a look but the first thing that jumps out is Hueyapan is linked twice in the final paragraph. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • Footnotes C,D, and H could very loosely be seen as unsourced, especially since the notes about name changes are sourced.
  • Done
  • The states of Mexico list is linked twice in the first paragraph
  • Done
    • It is also linked in the body as state capital. Could you explain the connection?
  • Done - I just removed the link, I don't think one is needed here.
All I found, ping me when needed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much OlifanofmrTennant! All your concerns have been addressed, no issues! Mattximus (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chivas USA managers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this list for FL, continuing my streak of Major League Soccer-related lists. This one covers managers for the defunct Chivas USA, which had an unbelievable nine managers across ten seasons. This list follows the same format as List of New England Revolution seasons, with a written summary of the managerial history as well as the list of managers with results. Brindille1 (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "competed in Major League Soccer (MLS) from 2005 until it folded after the 2014 season" - this wording could be interpreted as meaning that Major League Soccer folded in 2014. Suggest rewording to "competed in Major League Soccer (MLS) from 2005 until 2014, after which the team folded"
  • "Chivas USA introduced their introductory" - can you change one of these words so the language is less repetitive?
  • "at a press-conference on September 23, 2004" - there is no hyphen in "press conference"
  • "and with the team at a 1-8-1 record, " => "and, with the team at a 1-8-1 record, "
  • can you clarify within the article what a "1-8-1 record" is? To me, as a European, it means one win, eight draws, and one defeat, but it appears that in America it means one win, one draw and eight defeats
  • "he became team's sporting director" => "he became the team's sporting director"
  • There's an issue with the ref template after "losing in the first round each time"
  • "Before hiring their next coach, both Shawn Hunter (the chief executive) and Stephen Hamilton (the vice president of soccer operations) departed the club" - Hunter and Hamilton left the club but then hired its next coach? That doesn't make sense. I think the initial clause needs changing, as presumably the subject of that clause is the club.....
  • "with the team in last in the Western Conference" => "with the team in last place in the Western Conference"
  • "a lawsuit against the club alleging discrimination for not being Latino." => "a lawsuit against the club alleging that they were discriminated against for not being Latino."
  • "Sanchez Sola not always followed" - as this is apparently a direct quote, can I just confirm that the statement contained this grammatical error?
  • Wilmer Cabrera image caption needs a full stop.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude. I've fixed each of those points. Brindille1 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Apologies if I duplicate anything from ChrisTheDude above.

  • There needs to be a comma after Carson, California
  • Disastrous in the heading seems a little too much editorializing. Just "Debut season"
  • All the records need to have en dashes (i.e. 1-8-1 should be 1–8–1) I would recommend {{Win-loss record}} actually
  • end of the season, he announced comma isn't needed
  • within a month, but was hired as the manager comma isn't needed
  • national team, and stepped down comma isn't needed
  • one season, and was fired comma isn't needed
  • filed a lawsuit against the club alleging that they were for not being Latino. they were what? "Fired"?
  • as well as by Chivas USA." quote mark goes before the period
  • to a 3-6-12 record, and on comma isn't needed
  • its last match, and it ceased operations the next day --> its last match, ceasing operations the next day
  • Match results contain all league games as well as MLS playoff matches. "as well as" should just be "and"
  • The use of {{Abbr}} for "Win%" isn't correct. I think you are shooitng for a footnote here, which can be done using {{sfn}} and {{Notelist}}

That's all I got Brindille1. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, @Gonzo fan2007. I've addressed each of the items, except for "quote mark goes before the period"- the current text is correct based on my reading of MOS:QUOTEPUNCT Brindille1 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of emperors of the Ming dynasty

[edit]
Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about list of emperors of the Ming dynasty. I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets all the FL criteria and it is an important part of the series of articles on the topic of the Ming dynasty that I am currently improving. Min968 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this should be a WP:Featured list candidate rather than a WP:Featured article candidate? TompaDompa (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have fixed it. Min968 (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike

[edit]

Staking out a spot here, if I haven't responded within a week please ping me. Toadspike [Talk] 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the late 1620s, a peasant uprising erupted in northern China – link to Late Ming peasant rebellions.
  • A total of sixteen emperors ruled over China proper for 276 years. During their reign, China experienced a long period of economic growth and political stability. Specify that this refers to the Ming dynasty. (Philosophical note: I believe paragraphs and most sentences in the lead should be able to stand on their own, especially since search engine previews tend to take them out of context, so I think making them technically correct is important.)
  • continued to rule over the south of the country – I would prefer "continued to rule over southern China". The definition of country is very vague. It's okay that you use the phrase again later in the paragraph.
  • To defeat the rebels, the government troops in the north invited the Manchu-led Eight Banner armies of the Qing dynasty to come to the Central Plains. The Manchus then occupied northern China in the same year. "the government troops in the north" – clarify. I think this is a summary of the Battle of Shanhai Pass that could be misleading. Wu Sangui, for better or worse, is seen as a rogue general. The current wording suggests that the Ming government somehow condoned his decision. The use of "invited" is also probably inaccurate, phrasing using "coerced" is probably better. "Eight Banner armies" could be shortened to "Eight Banners", though this is not obligatory. Northern China should be linked. I prefer "that same year" over "in the same year".
  • a similar complex in Nanjing should link to Ming Palace.
  • according to the Hongwu Emperor's decision is vague and begs the question "which decision?" I think there's a name for it, it's been a while since I've read about this period but he did set down some kind of constitution/code of conduct for future emperors. Maybe it's the Great Ming Code I'm thinking of.
  • the successor to the throne was always the eldest son of the emperor and empress, or his heir if he had none, followed by younger sons of the empress. I'm not sure what you mean by "his heir if he had none". Could you clarify this, please? Does it mean that if the eldest son had a son and died, that grandson would be the successor? Also, something in this section should link to or be replaced with Taizi – probably the first use of "successor" or "heir".
@Toadspike I have removed some content from the article. In the near future, it may be included in another more suitable article or a new article specifically about the Ming emperors. Min968 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General point: The lead seems pretty long to me. Some of the content (e.g. "Court and family", "Burial traditions") seems much more suited for the main Emperor of China article or a new Ming emperors article. I don't mind much for now, but in the long run that would be the best move.

Drive-by comment
I suggest referring to the List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty for formatting, as it recently became and FL itself and is, to me, easier to understand than this list. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Min968, I second what SilverTiger12 said. The formatting should generally match previous FLs unless there is some need to be different. Seeing as List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty is a FL and looks really good, I would convert to that format. Please ping me when you have responded and made the changes, and I will do a full review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I have made quite a few revisions not only based on the List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty but also of the Song dynasty and of the Han dynasty. Min968 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007 @SilverTiger12 @Toadspike Min968 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

The list currently lacks column and row scopes, which are necessary for accessibility. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Also pinging AirshipJungleman29 in case they're interested in looking this over, as they recently has a related successful nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty/archive1 (though I suspect they may not be interested as this isn't Mongol Empire related). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, although I'm also interested in why List of emperors of the Ming dynasty by length of reign is a separate article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 In my opinion, cramming all of the information into one article will make it too long and confuse the reader about the main content. It may also dilute the information. Min968 (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Min968 (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

[edit]

List of Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because following the successful promotions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2 in July and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Women's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive1 earlier today, I think this is a good candidate. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

That's all I got. Nice work TonyTheTiger! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hampshire County Cricket Club grounds

[edit]
Nominator(s): AA (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have substantially expanded the article with prose, providing an overview of the history of Hampshire's use of different grounds, and I have reformatted the list so that it more closely matches other English county cricket grounds FLs. Any comments welcome! AA (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Nice work AssociateAffiliate! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of myotines

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bats list #6 and mammal list #47: Myotinae. Now that we got the giant vespertilionine list out of the way, the rest of the family Vespertilionidae is easier: this subfamily is a third of the size, with only 3 genera to keep track of. Still just another 121 tiny bats, but a few of these guys have decided that when they swoop down to pluck bugs off of the water, they're okay with snagging a fish while they're at it. Also, in contrast to the angry little guy of the past list, this list has the Yuma myotis down at the bottom who's just done with it all and ready to go home. In any case, as always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I don't know if I missed this on previous lists but......"Members [plural] of this subfamily are called a myotine [singular]" - maybe "A member...."....?
  • "neritic marine" - is there a link for this? I don't think it's a common/well-known term
  • Guatemalan myotis - habitat is blank
  • That's it - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007

[edit]

List of places in the Northern Territory by population

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I created this page back in 2022, I've been thinking about nominating this list for FL. I've finally got around to doing so now! This is a list of places in Australia's Northern Territory, the least densely-populated part of Australia, making for a very small number of places with a population above 200. This article includes a list of Urban centres and localities, as defined by the ABS, and a list of local government areas, as defined by the Northern Territory. Places listed range from the city of Darwin to small Aboriginal communities with only a few hundred people. I look forward to all comments. Steelkamp (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The lead seems a bit sparse at just four sentences. Could you incorporate some stuff about how there are only N settlements with over 1000 people, what the largest is, etc?
    • I've added some prose to the lead and also before each table. Hope that's good.
  • Why do some places have dashes for their 2011 population in the first table? Did they not exist?
    • Apart from Minyerri, which I have fixed (the 2011 census used a different spelling), those places did not have a high enough population at the time, or otherwise did not meet the requirements to be a UCL. I checked using the map at [1].
  • Why do some places in the second table have an asterisk rather than a rank?
  • Note a needs a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.

Thanks for the comments ChrisTheDude! Steelkamp (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

[edit]
  • Remove "The tallest building is 100 metres in height." from alt text of Darwin skyline image (irrelevant detail)
    • Done.
  • "self governing" → "self-governing"
    • Done.
  • "built up" → "built-up"
    • Done.
  • No need to say there are 17 local government areas twice in quick succession – remove one mention
    • If you keep the second mention, "seventeen" should be "17" for consistency
    • Done.
  • In the second table, Local government in Australia#Unincorporated areas may be a more useful link for "Unincorporated areas" (the link in the introductory prose is fine)
    • Done.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review RunningTiger123! Steelkamp (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The most recent census for which data has been released is the 2021 census. should just be merged into the second sentence, like It has a population of 232,605 as of the 2021 Australian census, the most recent for which data has been released, and occupies...

No other comments. Nice work Steelkamp! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks Gonzo fan2007. Steelkamp (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of pholidotans

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello, the name is Wolverine X-eye, a first-timer. I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. The list is about pangolins, perhaps one of the weirdest creatures out there. They have rough scales around their body, and are the most trafficked animals in the world according to some estimates. And that's all I really have to say about that, so I hope you enjoy it. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matthewrb

[edit]

Welcome to FLC, Wolverine X-eye!

This is a new one on me, a FLC that hasn't even been patrolled by NPP yet...

  • Your lead image needs alt text per MOS:ALT.
    • Done
  • Is there a reason there isn't a "See Also" section? While not required, it would be useful. WP:SEEALSO
  • Does Commons have a category for this family? I found commons:Category:Manidae after a search. If so, could you add {{Commons category-inline}} to a new External Links section at the bottom of the article so readers can view more pictures if they would like? MOS:ELLAYOUT
    • Done
  • According to Talk:List of manids, this article is classified as a redirect. Is there a reason for that, or should we classify it as list-class?
    • It's list-class for me

And finally, this article was blanked and then reverted five minutes later, less than an hour before I started this review. I'm not sure if this violates WP:FL? criteria #6, since it was a one-time thing. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Respectfully PresN, you were part of the merge discussion and have taken a position on that discussion. I would request that another @FLC director and delegates: take a look. WP:FLCR #6 requires stability, and I would argue that an ongoing merge discussion precludes stability. Either someone closes that merge discussion or this should be archived and brought back when things are settled. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty torn on this. The article isn't technically unstable unless it's closed as merge from my point of view. There's currently a request for closure, so, I think we may as well just wait it out at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey man im josh Not saying this is going to happen, but merge discussions can last for months. I don't see any issues closing this as unsuccessful for now, and then allowing the nominator to renominate when the merge discussion is over. I am sure Matthewrb would be happy to come back and lend their support when it gets renominated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon episodes removed from rotation

[edit]
Nominator(s): Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list focuses on Pokémon episodes that have been removed from rotation for reasons including removal from airwaves, being banned from airing, or being unaired entirely. I have rewritten this list from scratch from its current state and made sure to source everything in order to verify the article's content. I believe this meets the FL criteria due to the scope of coverage and overall quality.

I am aware this article uses a reference from Screen Rant, a usually marginally reliable source. I have included it as it and other similar quality sources are the only sources to discuss "The Tower of Terror" being removed from air. To ensure the comprehensiveness of the list, I have elected to include it, but I have only used it once for the sole purpose of this episode's verification. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]

Saving a spot. Ping if I haven't said anything by Tuesday. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realise it's going to be Tuesday and I still haven't written anything. I'll get on this tomorrow. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo just pinging to remind you in case something's happened. If you're still busy on your end then take all the time you need, but I did just want to double check as to your status. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose – Banned Episodes
Prose – Unaired, postponed, and temporarily removed episodes
Source Formatting

Sorry for the delay. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Before I do a full review, I want to express some concerns of mine:

  • First, I am concerned this doesn't meet WP:LISTN. I really don't see many sources discussing this topic as a whole. The title itself is really ambiguous. "Removed from rotation" seems like a way to try to inflate the number of entries past just those which are "banned". (WP:FLCR 3(c)). I also don't know how to tell if it is comprehensive, as there is an infinite amount of markets out there. Is this truly every single instance that an individual market has pulled an episode from rotation? FLCR 3(a).
  • Second, disregarding the first part, I think this is more appropriate for WP:GAN. This is primarily written as a true article on a topic and not a standalone list.

@FLC director and delegates: , do you mind chiming in with an opinion on these issues before I dive in for a review? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007 You can also ping me, given I'm the nom.
I didn't focus too hard on overall sources since enough existed to show the topic was discussed in a wider context, but I didn't need to use many in the article. A few examples: [2] This Polygon source covers the history of this subject and includes a vast majority of the subjects. [3] This Newsweek source, covering the Passimian episode, highlights other past examples of banned episodes. [4] This Bloomsbury published book contains a brief synopsis on these banned episodes and ties them to the perceived "moral panics" during the franchise's early days and in television as a whole. (Though I'm admittedly not quite sure how best to incorporate this one into the article) [5] This Duke University Press published book mentions some of the fan outcry regarding some of these episodes being banned initially. (Added info from here to the article)
I disagree that this isn't a list. It very much is. There's a lot of prose, but this is still inherently just a list of subjects with explanations provided. I don't see why this isn't a list, given it isn't something like another article I've worked on, Pokémon fan games, which is primarily an article with a list tacked on, rather than the article being a list in its entirety (Disregarding the lead).
The scope is something that shouldn't be a concern. I've searched for every example of an episode removal I could find, and I've covered everything that's covered in reliable sources, which, for the comprehensiveness criteria, is all that's needed. While the above sources I mentioned only cover a selected group of banned episodes (Primarily since a bulk of these were published before some of these even existed or had key details known), per LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The episodes were all removed and/or banned from air due to controversial real-world circumstances; it's hard to class that article scope in one satisfactory title, hence why I've elected to use the title that's been used for a decade. If you feel the title could do with a move, that shouldn't impact page content and can likely be determined in a process outside of FLC. If you feel particular episodes should be removed from the list and have their content shifted elsewhere, then that can be included in your review, where this can be discussed further. I hope this is a satisfactory response to both your concerns; let me know if you feel anything else needs to be clarified. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you had this page on your watchlist. I was just requesting some more experienced eyes on it. I do think the naming is problematic. Based on the first link you provided, "banned" seems fine. This would constrain the scope of the list and likely satisfy some of my concerns. I do still feel like the way this is written it more appropriate for WP:GAN. Happy to hear other opinions though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007 Ah, fair enough. In terms of the title, it can either be changed to better suit the current scope, or episodes can be shuffled in or out of the list if you feel certain ones don't belong. The scope of this tends to be episodes banned for a given reason; I've mainly based it on what the sources say. I'm not sure if a page move is allowed during an FLC, but I'm unopposed if you feel something like "Pokémon episodes banned from airing" or something similar would be better for the scope.
I'll let if this is better done as a GA or FL up to the coords. I've said my piece and can elaborate if need be, but I feel we're gonna have to agree to disagree until an outsider determines which is better for the scope of this list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen episode articles go both ways depending on their structure, but I have to say that this one strikes me as more of an article than a list, and I am in agreement with Gonzo fan that GAN seems like a more natural place for it. It would be too bad for FLC purposes, since I find this to be a most interesting topic from the Pokemon universe, but I have to call them like I see them. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States

[edit]
Nominator(s): MikeVitale 00:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have significantly expanded its content to meet the reasons why it was removed from its previous FL status. Its content now at least mirrors (if not improves upon, though that's subjective of course) List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada, an existing FL. --MikeVitale 00:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "however, by 1997, the American team had improved" => "by 1997, however, the American team had improved"
  • "and in their head-to-head match up" - pretty sure (unless this is an ENGVAR thing) that "match up" should have a hyphen
  • "at the Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea" - seems weird to link the whole of "the Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang" to the article on the games. I would link just the first three words to that article and link the city name to the article on the city (especially as I don't believe it is a well-known city on a global scale)
  • I know they are mentioned in the lead but I think a key above the tables for abbreviations like "USHHOF" wouldn't hurt, especially as in that particular example you don't show the abbreviation in the lead
  • External links should be below refs, not above them
  • That's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, ChrisTheDude. I believe that I have addressed all of them! --MikeVitale 01:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matthewrb

[edit]

That's all I've got. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 04:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Matthewrb.
I have already fixed the CS1 error. Then I started looking into the Commons Category thing. Sure enough, there's no CommonsCat for Ice Hockey players. Can you help me understand the difference between a Wikipedia Category and a Commons Category? Would creating a category on English WP automatically create a similar category on Commons? Are they two completely separate things that would need to be maintained separately? Is the Commons Category linked by Wikidata (which is something else I need to learn more about)?
I'll look further into the a11y fixes later.
--MikeVitale 12:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the CS1 error!
Wikimedia Commons is a sister project, so creating a category on en.wiki would not transfer to Commons. The goal of having a Commons category would allow our readers to find images of all of the women's ice hockey players from the US, since Commons is a free media repository. I'm not familiar how commons categories link to Wikidata, as I only have really worked on article changes in WD. For more info, here are some links:
Please feel free to ping me when you're done with the DTAB fixes or if you have more questions about Interwiki links. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 19:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DTAB fixes are now in place.
I'll start looking into the Category / Commons Category thing. --MikeVitale 01:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second reply:
I found commons:Category:Olympic ice hockey players from the United States and added it as a sub-category of commons:Category:Olympic sportspeople from the United States by sport. I then added a {{commons category}} link to the External links section of the List. --MikeVitale 01:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthewrb I've added the {{commons category}}, and I've further added all members of the US Olympic teams through the years who already have their own category on commons to the category.
Is there anything else that needs to be done? --MikeVitale 02:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MikeVitale: Looks amazing! One final thing: your scope="row" on the tables aren't working properly. You need to replace the pipes (|) with exclamation points (!) right before the word "scope" - does that make sense? MOS:DTAB has example code if you need.~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 03:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthewrb That's an easy fix -- that's already fixed. Thanks. --MikeVitale 03:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Support ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 03:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The Canadians again won gold in Sochi at the 2014 Winter Olympics, in a 3–2 overtime win against the US team. comma isn't needed.
  • Link "shootout" (Overtime (ice hockey)#Shootout). Also, I don't think shootout should have the hyphen.
  • National teams are coordinated by USA Hockey and players are chosen by the team's management staff. recommend moving this to the first paragraph after the second sentence

That's all I got. Nice work MikeVitale. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and kind words.
I have incorporated all of your suggestions into the article. --MikeVitale 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers award winners

[edit]
Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the lists I have brought to FLC, this was the most challenging from a development perspective. As always, happy to implement any edits or answer any questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824

In the "Most Valuable Player" table:

  • "Player of the year award" should have "colgroup" as the scope.
  • Images are missing alt text.

I found the same issues in the next section too. Please fix this over the whole page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824, got them both, thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824, if you have the time for a full review, I would really appreciate. No worries either way! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more comments here:

  • Consider linking "playoffs" somewhere. Maybe in the lead.
  • There is an unexplained overlap in the "Team awards" section: "NFL champion (1920–35)" and "NFL champion (1934–67)". Please fix.
  • "quarterback rating" needs a wikilink or an explanatory note.
  • George Halas, who played, coached and owned the Chicago Bears Maybe "played with" or "played in" might work better.
  • A few of the refs are missing archive links.

I didn't see any other problem with the prose or table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MPGuy2824, I really appreciate it! All comments addressed. Let me know if there is anything else. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mentioned, User:IABot isn't archiving new links right now. All old links are archived and I will update the page when IABot is up and running again. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. BTW, one can manually add archive links, but I'll trust you on running IABot when it is available. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • I will do a full review at some point, but one point that jumps out is repeated use of "the first Packers' player" / "the only Packers' player" / etc. There should not be an apostrophe there, because "Packers" is being used adjectivally, not possessively. If you used the first part of the team name rather than the second you would not say "he became the first Green Bay's player to do [whatever]".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude, I think I got them all here. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude if you are able to complete a full review, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks for any insight you may have. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I forgot all about this. Here's my comments......
  • "four Super Bowls, which is inclusive of two additional NFL Championships won during the merger of the NFL and American Football League (AFL), since then." - is the qualifier between the commas really needed? It makes the sentence a bit long and hard to unpack.....
  • Write out MVP in full on first use in the body as well as the lead
  • "In 2014, Rodgers has another season" => "In 2014, Rodgers had another season"
  • "The awardee is selected near the end of the game by electronic fan voting" - presumably only since a certain date.....?
  • "Holmgren's award came during first season with the Packers" => "Holmgren's award came during his first season with the Packers"
  • "after increasing the teams' record from 4–12" => "after increasing the team's record from 4–12"
  • In the notes, I think "Rookie of the year awards are only eligible for first-year players" is the wrong way round and should be "Only first-year players are eligible for Rookie of the year awards"
  • Also in the notes, odd capitalisation in "SN awards their player of the Year award"
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Putting this here because I reviewed the list of Packers MVPs and I'd like to review this as well (looks like a much stronger list at a quick glance and I'm already leaning support). Ping me if I haven't gotten back with a full review in a few days. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full review:

  • "9 conference championships" – spell out "nine" per MOS:NUMERAL
    • MOS:NUMERAL says Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently. Since 21 and 36 are written as numbers, 9 should be a number too, right?~~
  • "the Packers have recorded the most regular season victories (805) and the most overall victories (842) of any team..." – probably worth putting an "as of" statement here so it won't fall out of date
  • "The Packers received this award 8 times" – spell out "eight"
  • "The Packers have won four Super Bowls in 1966, 1967, 1996 and 2010." → "The Packers have won four Super Bowls, in 1966, 1967, 1996 and 2010." (don't want to imply they won four Super Bowls in each of those years)
  • "In addition to his role on offensive" – should be "on offense"
  • "from PFWA, SN in 1995 and 1996" → "from PFWA and SN in 1995 and 1996"
  • "The 1997 award from the AP was unique" – but it wasn't? The sentence specifically says this had happened before.
  • For player of the year, I don't think a recap of any MVP seasons is needed. For instance, you can just say Hornung won the 1961 player of the year award in the same season he won the MVP award.
  • "Favre led the NFL is both passing yards" – should be "is" (but the line should be cut per the above point)
  • "1 interception for a touchdown" – spell out "one"
  • Footnote u ("Only first-year players are eligible...") can be removed as superfluous
  • Starting with the assistant coach table, the image columns should be set to unsortable
  • Suggest setting a small column width for Ref. columns (more of an aesthetic matter, but wide columns for references seem off – setting a narrow width will force them to wrap)
  • As a general note, since you cite the winners in the tables, I don't think you need to include citations proving they won in the prose. (Any other information should still be referenced, just not the fact that they won and who presented the award.)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2019 Pacific typhoon season

[edit]
Nominator(s): —JCMLuis 💬 13:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2019 Pacific typhoon season was the costliest season ever recorded, due to several very destructive tropical cyclones that occurred. The most destructive of them all was Typhoon Hagibis, which made landfall over Japan in October and became the most damaging typhoon on record at the time, while also directly killing 118 people. Besides Hagibis, Typhoon Lekima brought havoc over China in August, becoming the second-costliest typhoon in the nation's history at the time, and Typhoon Faxai made landfall over Japan in September, becoming the costliest disaster of the year until Hagibis. In terms of activity, the season was above-average, with 29 named storms forming, of which 17 became typhoons. The season also featured the most powerful typhoon to occur in February, that being Typhoon Wutip.

This is (probably) the first attempt to get a Pacific typhoon season timeline into FL status. While making this timeline, I asked Dylan620 (talk · contribs), who made several Pacific hurricane season timelines that became featured lists, for help with the formatting and alternative texts. I will try my best to respond to any concerns with the timeline. —JCMLuis 💬 13:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with the caveat that I have helped out at certain points (as Luis mentions in his nomination statement). I'd argue that Luis's work with this timeline is more impressive than the EPAC and Atlantic timeline FLs I've helped to promote this year – not only because of the sheer quantity of systems (the WPAC is typically the most active of all the world's tropical cyclone basins), but because this timeline thoroughly includes information from not just one, but two major warning agencies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]
  • The 2019 Pacific typhoon season consisted of the events that occurred in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation over the western North Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea. --> The 2019 Pacific typhoon season was the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation over the western North Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea, primarily in 2019. or something similar.
    • Changed. I'm assuming the "primarily in 2019" part is because of Pabuk forming in 2018.
  • which wrought damage to Japan wrought comes across as a little unencyclopedic. "Inflicted" or "caused"?
    • Changed to inflicted.

Wow, no other comments. Really nice work JCMLuis. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I have addressed your concerns. —JCMLuis 💬 21:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flo Milli discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing and making this at least FL quality and formatting it for a bit of time and now just deciding to nominate it. Have looked at recent FLs and do believe it reaches the maximum that I can improve it for. So have at it and have fun! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were a breakthrough hit" - this doesn't make sense grammatically, as it says that the artist herself "were a breakthrough hit". Assuming you mean the songs, how can two songs be "a breakthrough hit" (singular)
  • "Due to the success of her first two singles, Flo Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media" - so was the success of her singles down to "gaining popularity on social media"? Currently you are giving two different reasons for her signing
  • "Flo Milli released her debut mixtape, Ho, Why Is You Here?, the following year." - as you haven't mentioned any years up to this point, saying "the following year" is meaningless
  • "In 2021, her debut singles "In the Party" and "Beef FloMix"" - by definition an artist can only ever have one debut single, not multiple
  • "started working on her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho? which was" => "started working on her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho?, which was"
  • "number 46 in Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums[4]. " - refs go after punctuation, not before
  • " "Conceited", one of the singles in You Still Here, Ho?, had been certified gold " => " "Conceited", one of the singles taken from You Still Here, Ho?, was certified gold "
  • "Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay, Flo Milli had released multiple singles" => "Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay, Flo Milli released multiple singles"
  • "such as "Einstein", "No Love Shemix", "Anything Flows" " => "such as "Einstein", "No Love Shemix", and "Anything Flows" "
  • "as a part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven[5]," => "as part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven[5]," (also note again that refs go after punctuation)
  • "In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay and reached number 15" => "In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay, which reached number 15"
  • "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay and debuted and peaked at number 54 on the Billboard 200" => "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay, which debuted and peaked at number 54 on the Billboard 200"
  • Singles which did not chart will all need references to confirm that they were released/exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, Fixed everything except the additional sources which I will be adding soon, gonna look for secondary sources but most are most likely gonna have to be primary sadly .Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
[edit]
  • "Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were both a breakthrough hit" - this isn't grammatically correct. It should be "and both were" not "and were both", and also two songs can't be "a hit" (singular). I would also suggest that an act can only have one "breakthrough hit" as after that they have already broken through.
  • "After the success of her first two singles, Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media" - this still doesn't make sense to me. Is it meant to suggest that the two singles were successful, then she gained popularity on social media and then she signed with those labels?
  • "her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho? which was released" => "her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho?, which was released"
  • "as a part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven" - as I said above, this should be "as part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven"
  • ""B.T.W." as a cover of Blow the Whistle,[6] "Fruit Loop", "Chocolate Rain", and "BGC"." - firstly, is "Blow the Whistle" a song? If so, it should be in quote marks. Also, you say that one song was a cover of four different songs - this isn't possible. Do you mean it contains elements of all those songs? If that's the case, it would also be worth saying who those songs are by, as just saying "BGC" (a song which I have personally never heard of and which appears to have no article to fill me in) doesn't really give any context
  • "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay which debuted " => "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay, which debuted " -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, For the fifth bullet point, I think you had it mixed up. It's supposed to be a list of her singles that she released in between her mixtape and her second album, not that the one single has elements of the others as Fruit Loop, Chocolate Rain, and BGC are her singles. I've added semicolons instead of regular commas, does it read better now?
@ChrisTheDude:, @IanTEB:: Gonna ping you both here because I am getting mixed responses from both of you on the same thing. In her early career, Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and both were breakthrough hits. After the success of her first two singles on social media and the gain of popularity, Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records are the sentences in question and I am getting one way how to do it and another way saying that I should do it this way and it's like hitting a rock into a brick wall.. it ain't gon do nothing.
My only issue with those sentences is that I don't believe it is possible for an artist to have multiple "breakthrough hits". Once they have had one "breakthrough hit" then by definition they have already broken through and can't break through again. I don't see that IanTEB has said anything which contradicts that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, ive changed it to "both were successful hits". does that read well?
I think that the vast majority of people would consider a "hit" to be a song which got in the charts, and as far as I can see neither of these songs did, so I would avoid the word "hits". I think it would be worth being a bit more specific on how they were "successful" given that neither actually charted. I'm assuming they became popular on TikTok or something.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

Review is based on this version of the page.

Source review: Pending

  • Wikilinking to websites/publishers/sources is inconsistent (some linked, some not), please add wikilinks where appropriate
  • Use YouTube as the capitalization instead of Youtube
  • Ref 1 – Add subscription status to reference
  • Ref 6 – Currently all caps, which is not desirable, and the source uses a different capitalization
  • Refs 9 and 11 – Duplicate ref, merge them
  • Refs 10 and 67 – Duplicate ref, merge them
  • Ref 12 – Remove "(News)" from the website field. Alternatively, use Template:Cite press release
  • Ref 25 – Uses "Fader" instead of "The Fader", like refs 64 and 70. This is also a duplicate of 64, so they should be merged.
  • Ref 28 – Link is dead, mark is as such
  • Ref 29 – Target article for the website is Uproxx, match this capitalization (also for consistency with ref 69)
  • Refs 30, 91, and 100 – Require subscription access, mark as such
  • Refs 32 and 34 – These show the website as "Revolt TV", whereas there are 11 other references that simply use "Revolt"
  • Ref 51 – Seems link an incorrect link, perhaps this is what you were looking for?
  • Ref 55 – Shift from all caps to title case
  • Note B – "I Am" did not enter Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, but peaked at number 19 on R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Song Sales.[51] – The source in my above comment shows it peaked at 15
  • Refs 76 and 77 – Website is currently listed as "RapUp", but should be Rap-Up based on the target (and to match ref 100)
  • Ref 86 – Shift from all caps to title case
  • Refs 91 and 101 – Website should be Rolling Stone, not "RollingStone"
  • Ref 95 – Add subscription status to reference

That's what I've got for now, please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all except Ref 10 and 67 from your version which were two different sources, one is a Billboard link and one is a Revolt link. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping: @Hey man im josh:
@Cowboygilbert: Is there a reason you chose to remove the wikilinks instead of adding them to sources? It seems you chose to go with linking the first occurrence of a source. If sources are added at a later point in time, ahead of the ones used, then your wikilink could come after another one. This is why I typically recommend to wikilink the publishers entirely. Though, if your formatting is consistent, this isn't technically required, but in a discography of an active artist I would expect it to become problematic at some point. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually.. it looks like you went too far in removing links because Vulture has no links now. Also, a quick look over and I noticed that Hypebeast is linked multiple times, Billboard is linked a couple times but not consistently, HotNewHipHop is not linked at first occurence but linked elsewhere. This is the problem that I was talking about with the inconsistent linking and the related concerns I have about it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh:, added all wikilinks
@Cowboygilbert: Pings do not work without a signature added afterwards, so I did not get this ping. I'll try to find time to finish my review on this today. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sorry for the delay. I did some cleanup of a few things that were leftover. The only thing I'm hesitant / hung up on is the usage of "That Grape Juice", which refers to itself as a blog and is not used very much as a source on wiki. Can that reference be replaced or is there a claim to why they're a reliable source? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IanTEB

[edit]

I also have a FL nomination open for Gen Hoshino discography, so if you'd like to leave any comments it would be greatly appreciated.

First paragraph

  • In her early career, Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were a breakthrough hit - I would reword this a little bit, here's a suggestion: 'Flo Milli released her debut singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party", in 2019, which were successful.'
  • Due to the success of her first two singles, Flo Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media - this feels a little contradictory, since it attributes her signing to both her debut singles and popularity on social media, but presents these in different parts of the sentence which makes it a little bit confusing. Maybe just replace 'Due to the success of her first two singles' with 'Subsequently'?
  • In 2021, her debut singles "In the Party" and "Beef FloMix" were certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America - I don't think these don't need introduction again when they were mentioned only a few sentences earlier. In my opinion, this information should be moved into their earlier introduction.
  • After releasing her debut mixtape Milli started working on her debut studio album - if my previous point is addressed, this should be reworded to something along the lines of: 'After its release, Milli started working on her debut studio album [...]'
  • By the way, usage of the artist's name in the first paragraph feels a little repetive to me. Try to switch it out for pronouns if appropriate
  • and peaked at number 78 in the Billboard 200 - 'in' should be 'on'
  • Citation after Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums should be placed after the fullstop.
  • 'Conceited', one of the singles in You Still Here, Ho? - album name doesn't need to be repeated; this could just say: "'Conceited', one of its singles, [...]"
  • had been certified gold by the RIAA - 'had' should be 'has'

Second paragraph

  • Citations after 7-Eleven and Blow the Whistle should come after the comma
  • Fine Ho, Stay should be linked on the earliest mention; currently its linked on the second
  • and reached number 15 in the Billboard Hot 100 - 'in' to 'on'
  • In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay and debuted and peaked at number - 'and debuted' → 'which debuted'
  • Information about her second album seems a little all over the second paragraph. Meghan Trainor discography might have clues for improving the flow a bit

List

  • Shouldn't the first instance of 'Digital download' be linked to Music download?
  • Text should be added above the Singles tables like all other sections
  • List of music video appearances, indicating, where applicable, the associated album, directors, and other performers - 'indicating, where applicable,' could be removed since this is assumed. Like all tables, "List of music videos, with ..." would be more concise.

Most of these should be easy fixes. Hopefully nothing is of much difficulty. IanTEB (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IanTEB:, Question: For your fifth bullet about the second paragraph, it doesn't make sense to me what you mean by "all over the place". The information about her second album is in just the last two sentences. But other than that issue, should all be fixed. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the article again and I'll leave a bit explanation + a few remaining comments:
  • The second mention of You Still Here, Ho? in the lead does not capitalize the 'h' in 'Here'
  • After the success of her first two singles on social media and the gain of popularity - wouldn't it make more sense to say 'After the success of her first two singles,'?
  • Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay - I personally think it would be better to specify timespan her. What year/s?
  • I find the list of singles in the second paragraph a little difficult to understand on first read. It might be better to divide it up
  • Is "B.T.W." a cover of "Blow the Whistle"? If so, link in the Singles as lead artist list and maybe change the wording, e.g. to 'she covered Too Short's "Blow the Whistle" on the single "B.T.W." '
  • What I mean by the fifth bullet point you mentioned is that the second album is mentioned throughout most of the second paragraph, when that information should be more collected. My suggestion would be to alter In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay to remove mention of the album. Then change the sentence after to: "Never Lose Me" supported her second album, Fine Ho, Stay (2024), which [...]
I hope this clarifies. IanTEB (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IanTEB:, ive done some more tweaks and changed the semicolon list back to a comma list and moved some of the items to make sure that there is no confusion on the cover for Blow the Whistle like in Chris' original comment. thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]

About damn time Flo Milli articles are getting editors' attention. Doechii next, perhaps? :thinking: anyway, @Cowboygilbert, comments below; ref numbers from this version

  • Recommendation: if you can, run IABot on all the archivable links
  • Re. release years, include the ones for "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party", and remove the second mention of the release year for Fine Ho, Stay
  • "Flo Milli released two singles, 'Beef FloMix' and 'In the Party' and both were successful hits" since " 'Beef FloMix' and 'In the Party' " is an appositive, there should be a comma after "Party"
  • "...And both were successful hits. After the success of her first two singles on social media..." this is redundant. Remove the first part
  • "as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay (2024) which reached number 15 on the Billboard Hot 100" this gives the impression that it was Fine Ho, Stay that charted on the Hot 100; perhaps rewrite as "...Fine Ho, Stay, reaching number 15..."
  • For ref 16, you have not indicated the single whose peak is cited to the first reference
  • For ref 48, you use "Recorded Music NZ" as the source for the first ref but "Official New Zealand Music Chart" for the other. Which is it?
  • Where are the references for the "Guest appearances" section?
  • Name stylizations (jetphynx, $not) should not apply; replace with Jetphynx and Snot instead. If "DUH" in "DUH!" doesn't stand for anything, the same applies.
  • If a single didn't chart anywhere or wasn't certified for anything yet (e.g. "Not Friendly" or "Eat It Up"), the entry should come with a citation
  • Re. the generic "remix" parentheticals/descriptors in entries like "Hot (Remix)" or "Conceited Remix": these should be decapitalized and moved outside the quotation marks. Per MOS:MUSIC#Popular music: "For titles of works and releases, purely descriptive phrases in parentheses or after dashes, such as 'remix', 'acoustic version' and 'remastered', should not be considered part of song titles"
  • Similarly, "extended" should be decapitalized and deitalicized

Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 04:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cowboygilbert in case they missed this feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PSA:, I will be getting to this tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday whenever I am back online. Too late as of rn. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 07:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:PSA, I have finished the bits about content and formatting. Gonna be getting to the refs soon still. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • and has since been certified platinum by the RIAA --> and certified platinum by the RIAA

That's all I got. Nice work Cowboygilbert and good reviews by the previous reviewers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboygilbert, just a courtesy ping. You have a number of outstanding comments from multiple reviewers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in Ciudad Real

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)[reply]

This list is one more step in our quest to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made considerable changes based on our last nominations which currently has 3 supports. This one should go smoothly as we are always building on previous suggestions, but we are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The Statute of Autonomy of Castilla–La Mancha also contains provisions concerning the relations between the municipalities and the autonomous government of Castilla–La Mancha" - is this meant to be in here, given that we are not talking about that province......?
  • That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude: The province of Ciudad Real is part of the autonomous community of Castilla–La Mancha, so those provisions do apply. The autonomous community is the first-level administrative division and the province is the second-level one. Alavense (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
Hi, MPGuy2824. As stated in previous nominations, it's impossible to archive many of the references, given that they are selections of data from the general set of municipalities. I archived those I could, but the ones which provide population figures cannot be archived, I'm afraid. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (source review)

[edit]
  • Done I think I did this correctly
  • Image review: all images are free, captioned and used appropriately.
  • Source review:
    • All references are consistently formatted.
    • All references appear reliable for what is being cited.
    • Ref 1 appears to be a dead link
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 2 appears to be a landing page. Please provide more specific locations for the info cited. As an example, Ref 2 is supposed to support and the 3rd largest by land area, spanning 19,812.81 square kilometres and yet that info isn't on this page.
      • I did fix the link to address this specific concern. But for other links and landing pages, I'm not sure if direct links are possible. I will try pinging Alavense to see if they know. Otherwise all your comments have been addressed! Mattximus (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • All other ref spot checks look good. I will note that I am a basic level Spanish speaker and using that and a combination of Google translate, I feel comfortable that the Spanish sources are good.

Nice work Mattximus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, did you address Ref #2? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus so it looks like Ref 19 is the only one still going to the landing page. Can you link directly to a list by land area? We typically don't cite pages where the reader has to actually search for the information. As an example, I work a lot on Green Bay Packers articles; I can't cite to Packers.com and then force users to click around to find the information. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After some searching, it appears that is actually the correct page, but you need to click on download zip file to see all the data. Any ideas how I should cite that? Mattximus (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus can you copy the download link? You can right click in Chrome and "View page source" and try to find the link to the downloaded data. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried the view page source and inspect mode, but I cannot for the life of me find the link. I will have to defer to Alavense as they know the source. Mattximus (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus and Alavense:, any progress? I hate to hold this up on something fairly minor, but as the source review I cannot easily verify the information being cited. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If alavense cannot reply by tomorrow I'll give it one more shot, or worst case, find a new source. Mattximus (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pau Grand Prix winners

[edit]
Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pau Grand Prix is a motor race held on the Circuit de Pau-Ville street circuit in the commune of Pau in southwestern France. Famous names such as Lewis Hamilton, Alberto Ascari, Juan Manuel Fangio, Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, René Arnoux and Tazio Nuvolari have won this race that has been held to the rules of various racing categories over the years. All comments are welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824
  • While sorting the table, the years when the race wasn't held sometimes comes on top. You'll have to ensure that it sorts at the bottom.

I couldn't find any other problems with table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • city street track in the centre of Pau, in the Pyrénées-Atlantiques department of southwestern France. the sentence structure here is weird for me, but maybe that is because I am American and just used to "CITY, STATE". Maybe adding a commune would achieve what you are trying to say in a little bit clearer way?
  • The ACBB was first inspired to hold the race in 1933 after the success of the Monaco Grand Prix as well as other races in Nice and Nîmes I believe you need a comma after "Prix"
  • on a podium seems superfluous and I would recommend deleting
  • for the longest wait between two victories change "wait" to "period" or something similar, implies he was just waiting around
  • Signature have the most wins of any team with seven shouldn't it be "has". Its a team, right? So "The Signature Team has".

EnthusiastWorld37, nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Hoshino discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): IanTEB (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on Gen Hoshino articles for around a year. Though there are several more topics I've yet to cover, I thought it would be useful to expand upon this discography page for an outline, and have decided to nominate it for FL. Though I've contributed to a few GAs, this is my first experience with the featured content process. I'm sure there’s many issues that I am unaware of and any/all feedback would be appreciated.

I don't know if I'm making this nomination description too long, but a few of the Japanese sources used I believe are new to featured content nominations on enwiki, so I'd like to explain my usage rationales for a few. Active since 2013, Real Sound is (in my experience) an authority source on Japanese music. They have interviews with high-profile artists (including Hoshino) and have several writers I recognize from other sites, some of which also with articles on Japanese Wikipedia. Rockin'On Japan is the website of a print magazine running since 1972. Similar case to Real Sound. I’ve used the online CDJournal on almost all my GAs without issue. They have an editorial team that publishes reviews for CD singles and albums, spanning several years. I see them sort of as the Japanese AllMusic.

I'll try my best to fix any issues brought up. Any comments are appreciated! IanTEB (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • It took me a while to figure it out but when you say "For double A-side singles, the first two columns refers to the A-side tracks, and the third column refers to chart positions, sales, and certifications for the double A-side release", I think what you actually mean is "For double A-side singles, the first two rows refers to the A-side tracks, and the third row refers to chart positions, sales, and certifications for the double A-side release" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you; I've amended the article. Having such a note is from the start a little unusual, but it's the best solution I could come up with since there's instances of one double A-side having three different peaks on a singular chart. IanTEB (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which decisively opened at first" => "which debuted at number one"
  • "on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums and" => "on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums chart and"
  • "Sixth place on Billboard Japan's year-end ranking for 2016" => "Placing sixth on Billboard Japan's year-end ranking for 2016"
  • Why do you list the full track listings for the two indie releases but not for any of his official albums? I would suggest that the norm is not to show it for any album
  • Do his most recent three albums not have Japanese titles?
  • Never seen "streaming playlists" in a discography article but I guess in this day and age it's valid........?
  • "though it would still peak at number 40 on the chart in December 2016" => "although it still peaked at number 40 on the chart in December 2016" (same for other similar sentences in the footnotes)
  • That's all I got, I think...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: I've fixed the issues with the text and removed the track listing. I based the latter off of Meghan Trainor discography, which includes track listing for independent releases. My reasoning was that these will never have articles, so this would be the only place to include that information, but I've removed it anyways since I agree with your comment. Streaming playlists comes from Taylor Swift albums discography. I wasn't sure if I should include them but thought I might as well. I'd have no issues removing if anyone sees it as an issue. His three most recent albums are titled in English.
    Thank you for the comments. Please let me know if you find any other issues. IanTEB (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • I checked the first two tables and the "Title" cell was missing its scope which should be "col".
  • In the "As lead artist" table the cell "Peak chart positions" should have "scope=colgroup"
  • Please check all the tables for these issues and fix them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824: Thanks for the comments. Since I'm not particularly knowledgable on Wikicode, I don't quite know what this has changed, but I've added the "col" scope to all title cells and the "colgroup" scope to all cells with a colspan parameter. Hopefully this addresses your issues. IanTEB (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm not particularly knowledgable on Wikicode, I don't quite know what this has changed My fault, it is for accessibility reasons (for screen readers). I should have linked to PresN's standard comment here. While we are at it, I notice that some of the header cells of rows have scope as "col", when it should be "row" (e.g. "Stranger in Budokan" in Live albums). Do make sure that you check this in all tables. I've found no issues with the prose, so this is all that is remaining to get a support from me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824: I really appreciate the explanation; I'll definitely apply this whenever I work on tables in the future. I'm unable to find any use of the "col" scope for header cells (including Stranger in Budokan, which is preceded by ! scope="row" |), unless I'm misunderstanding your comment. IanTEB (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal

[edit]

List of counties in Maryland

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Maryland, WikiProject U.S. counties, nominator is long-inactive

2007 promotion, fails FLCR 3b with several citation needed tags and an unsourced section. Also fails 5c; flag and seal should not be sortable and the former counties table does not have column and row headers. Talk page concerns went unanswered. charlotte 👸♥ 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the table accessibility issues that you've pointed out.
Remaining problems:
  1. Sourcing issues.
  2. The lead map, and the flags and seal images in the table require alt text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach season 1

[edit]
Notified: Erachima, Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

Following the recent FLRC for 30 Rock season 1 and a discussion regarding expectations for TV season articles, this list appears to fall clearly short of current-day FL standards. High-quality season articles (whether FLs or GAs) are generally expected to cover production, reception, etc. in addition to providing plot summaries. Sourcing is also poor, relying heavily on primary sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note: seasons 2–10 of the show are also FLs and I plan to nominate those for FLRC later for similar reasons, but it's only fair that each FLRC get due consideration, so barring any notes to the contrary (and to avoid flooding FLRC), I plan to nominate them one at a time. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't even close to being complete. At best this is a C level article. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original editor left Wikipedia years ago Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that both the nominator of this season's list and the nominator for most later seasons left, so please let other people know about this FLRC if they are in a better position to help or provide feedback. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – poorly sourced, and generally not up to standard. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove all of the relevant information simply being formatted into a lead section is a poor format and extremely unencyclopedic. As those above have said, we expect more from articles of this type than we did in the past. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1259216697"