Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 who have previously successfully nominated a list may have two concurrent featured list nominations only if the first active nomination 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]

55th Academy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1983 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 09:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1991

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If like me you are old enough to remember the summer of 1991, you probably also remember becoming thoroughly bored of a certain song by Bryan Adams. Here in the UK it topped the pop chart for a ridiculous 16 weeks, and it seems it was just as big in the United States, becoming the longest-running number one on the AC chart for over a decade. Anyway, here's the full list of AC number ones from that year, following the same format as 29 previous FLs. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]

Nice work, as always, ChrisTheDude. I'll only make a couple of comments:

  • Because I Love You (the Postman Song) or Because I Love You (The Postman Song)?
  • the longest run atop the AC chart since 1979 - Would it be okay to mention who achieved that back in 1979? I also think that the list for that year could be linked.
  • Michael Bolton had three number ones in 1991 and Amy Grant had two number ones during the year read a bit too similar in my opinion.
  • Same thing for the following two: spent four consecutive weeks at number one and spent four weeks at number one.

That's all I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: - thanks for your review! I've addressed the above. Re: point 2, the run in question ended in 1979 but actually spanned two years, so I have linked both -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Happy to support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Support from HAL

[edit]
  • "Adams's song, taken from the soundtrack of the film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," - Is there a better way to put this then "taken", maybe like "Adam's song, the lead single from..."
  • "the top 5" - Should this be "top five"?

That's all I got. Solid work as usual. ~ HAL333 16:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. ~ HAL333 21:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All of the citations are reliable, high-quality, and appropriate for a FL about music. The citation structure is consistent. I do have some minor notes below, but it is nothing major.
  • For Citation 4, I would recommend adding that a subscription is required to view the article. On a side note, should Billboard be in italics for the title?
  • The Billboard charts in general now seem to require a Pro subscription to view, and I think that it would be helpful to mark that in the citation.
  • I would recommend archiving web links, but that is not required for a FL. It would just be helpful to avoid any potential headaches when it comes to possible link rot and death.
  • Is there a reason for using the same citation for two sentences in a row for the lead's first paragraph instead of just having one citation at the end of the paragraph?
  • This is more of a clarification question so feel free to disagree. Should the last few sentences of the lead have citations or is the information being cited through the tables in the list? Has this been something done in previous Billboard FLs? Again, this is just a clarification question. I am not saying that it is wrong, but it did catch my attention so I just wanted some clarification about it.
  • I have done a spot-check of the sources, and from what I see, the citations support the information in the prose and tables.

I hope that this source review is helpful. As always you have done a wonderful job. My comments are very nitpick-y. I do have two clarification questions at the end, but my main point is that the sources that require a subscription to access should be clearly marked in the citation. Once that has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this source review. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - many thanks for taking the time to do the source review, responses are above! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of governors of Cross River State

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list of governors of Nigeria's state of Rivers from when the region was called Eastern then splitted into South-Eastern and two other states, then South-Eastern ranamed to Cross River. I have significantly worked on this and it now meets the criteria for FL. Feedback would be very much appreciated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]

Nice read. I've only got a couple of comments:

  • Originally part of the Eastern Region, the territory became part of - Can something be done to avoid the part of iteration?
  • D. Governor - Two things: 1) does it have to be a capital D? and 2) I feel it would be better to have the full Deputy governor or else add the {{Abbr}} template.

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense Thanks for reading and giving input. I fixed that sentence, I think it needs to be capitalised because it is a title of a column in a table, and besides the abbr template already does the job perfectly. What do you think? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy now. Thanks for taking care of these so quickly, Vanderwaalforces. Happy to support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix de France (figure skating)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since World Figure Skating Championships has just been promoted to FL, here is another figure skating article for your consideration. This is not a championship-level event, but a Grand Prix event. The Grand Prix is a series of six competitions held once a week in succession during the fall, and is considered quite prestigious. I have personally verified all of the results and examined the sources, the tables are properly formatted, the history is thorough, I believe the sources are all properly formatted, and I have used a variety of photographs to showcase this competition. I had sent this article to GA earlier, but it was bounced back with the recommendation that I bring it to FL instead. This is not the next article I had expected to bring here, but I especially liked working on this one. Pinging Arconning, who expressed a willingness to review this. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iowa tornadoes

[edit]
Nominator(s): ActuallyElite (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because there are other tornado lists that are featured articles like List of California tornadoes and List of Connecticut tornadoes. I feel like the article for List of Iowa tornadoes has good enough quality to be nominated to be a featured list. ActuallyElite (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Map needs alt text.
  • "An old brick college had its roof gone and major damage to it’s walls in Grinnell, Iowa" is not acceptable alt text. It should describe the image not the story, "had its roof gone" is also not correct.
  • Units of measurement should be spelled out on the first time with the acronym in brackets. Them used as just acronyms.
  • All sources should be archived, if IA bot doesn't get them you must do them manually.
  • I do not think the source "Only In You State" is reliable and should be replaced.
  • The acronym "KCCI" should be expanded, as with all other acronyms in references.
  • PS: I peer reviewed this article.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @History6042:Finished everything. I manually archived all the sources that were able to be archived on Internet Archive. ActuallyElite (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

List of My Name Is Earl episodes

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, I'm back with another episode list (and it's not Doctor Who-related this time)! In short, the television comedy My Name Is Earl can be summed up into one word: Karma. I've watched this series several times, and it has been a comfort show for me. I realized the episode list was in poor shape, so I've been working on improving it, and figured that I would bring it here. Thanks in advance for any reviews! (Note: As usual, IA bot is down currently, so I'll run that whenever I get a chance to clean up a few archives) TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "It first premiered on September 20, 2005" - as a show by definition can only premiere once, I think the "first" is not needed
  • "Three additional seasons followed" - you haven't specifically said that there was a first season, only the date of its premiere. For all the reader knows, that could mean that that premiere was a standalone single episode
  • "The series was subsequently and unexpectedly cancelled" => "The series was unexpectedly cancelled" is fine I think
  • "due to the would-be cuts in cast, writers, and crew" => "due to the resultant cuts in cast, writers, and crew"
  • "My Name Is Earl was continuously a strong performer in viewing figures for NBC" - I think maybe this would be better as "My Name Is Earl was consistently a strong performer in viewing figures for NBC"
  • " It also takes place in a shared fictional universe with Raising Hope" => " It takes place in a shared fictional universe with Raising Hope"
  • That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Is an viewer count graph available like some other FLs like this?
  • Why does the caption not appear?
  • I think most columns should be for sortable. I think a least a few people would want to sort by viewer count.
  • I think it is standard to link something multiple times if it is in table.
  • Why are some things that are available to be merged are, and some are not?
  • What is the difference between "&" and "and". If there isn't one they should be consistent.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @History6042:
    • I have added a viewing figures graph
    • Table captions are not required to appear when they would substantially duplicate nearby text from the heading (see the technical details at {{sronly}}))
    • Episode table/list is the standard across LoE FL's and there's not an option to make the tables sortable
    • MOS:DUPLINKs are permitted in tables if it "significantly aids the reader", I don't believe that's the case here as the tables aren't that big, and the same link can easily be found within the same table
    • The only merged content are for two-part episodes where they are within the same instance of {{Episode list}}, they can't me merged across different uses of those templates
    • More info on the difference between "&" and "and" can be found here, but essentially "&" is used for teams that regularly write together while "and" is used for teams that don't. For reference, the uses here are based upon the actual credits of each episode, and not personal interpretation of when "regularly" is met
    Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems all good, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I have a comment for this sentence: (The series was unexpectedly cancelled, ending the show on a cliffhanger). I wonder if there is a way to avoid having "series" and "show" in the same sentence as it seems a bit repetitive to me. Maybe just saying "ending on a cliffhanger" or using the name of the show at the start of the sentence instead? I could just be over-thinking it though.
  • For this part, (he discovers the concept of Karma), I am uncertain if karma should be capitalized, as it is not a proper noun. I have not run into instances where it is capitalized, but I could be mistaken.
  • I believe that for the citation titles, the show title should be in italics per WP:CONFORMTITLE.

Wonderful work with the list I have very fond memories of this show. For whatever reason, I remember Jaime Pressly the most. I can definitely see how this would be a comfort show. For me, it is very much tied to a particularly moment in time, but that is not a bad thing. I did not notice anything major, and my comments are rather nitpick-y. I will be more than happy to support this FLC once everything has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Always happy to see you stopping by my review pages! Pressly is a fantastic performer, I also saw her a few years ago in Welcome to Flatch where she plays a different character with the same vibes. I've addressed your three comments, thanks pointing them out! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I will have to check that show out! Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Men's T20 World Cup qualification

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 03:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the final FLC in the 2024 Men's T20 World Cup topic; I might take an extended break from en-wiki after this closes, so cheers to the last one (for now). Vestrian24Bio 03:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Latin Women in Music

[edit]
Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This list was originally created by OscJ, but I left a message on their talk page, although they yet to respond. However, I did the major overhaul to ensure what I feel meets FL standards. I've been eyeing on this ceremony since its inception in 2023 and waited about two years to see if it would grow and sure enough, it did! Plus with Mother's Day coming up, this could be perfect! I'm ready to tackle any issues with the list! Erick (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • Out of pure curiosity, is there any reason the italic string is embedded in {{main other}} when no second parameter is included?
  • This list is lacking hidden date format and English variety tags
  • All of the images are missing WP:ALT text
  • The images also shouldn't used a fixed px size (see WP:UPRIGHT)
  • I'd suggest hiding the table captions with {{sronly}} due to their proximity to the adjacent text and subheader
  • References 4 and 12 (currently Zemler 2024; Rolling Stone) are duplicates and should be merged

I think that's it for me . TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Images need alt text.
  • All sources need archived.
  • Many of the smaller awards, (Tradition and Future Award, Visionary Award, etc.), only have one year, 2023 and 2024. Is this out of date.
  • Some images are very small and some are quite big, for example, La India vs. Natti Natasha. Please make them at least somewhat consistent sizing.
  • You don't need a citation in the infobox, the citation is already in the lede for the same info.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]

@Magiciandude:

  • Add language variant template.
  • 7 refs need archives.
  • Images need alt texts.
  • While all other awars only mentions what its awarded for, why only Global Powerhouse Award section mentions the first recipient in the prose.
  • There's a duplicated citation - 4th & 12th refs.
  • Link Billboard in all sources to Billboard (magazine).
  • In the table headers instead of {{Abbr|Ref.|References}} could use the {{Ref.}} template.

Vestrian24Bio 10:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The Billboard Latin Women in Music is an annual event" reads a little oddly. I would suggest either "Billboard Latin Women in Music is an annual event" or "The Billboard Latin Women in Music ceremony is an annual event"
  • "Karol G and Selena Gomez, who have won Woman of the Year in 2024 and 2025" => "Karol G and Selena Gomez, who won Woman of the Year in 2024 and 2025 respectively"
  • "on the American edition of the awards" - given that this ceremony (i.e. the Latin one) is held in the United States and has honoured American artists, is it really accurate to call the other one (i.e. Billboard Women in Music) "the American edition of the awards"? Maybe call the latter "the all-genre Billboard Women in Music awards".
  • Also, in that same sentence, it should be "at" the awards, not "on" the awards
  • Some of the sub-sections start with "The [whatever] award is presented to" but others just start with "Recognises an artist for [whatever]". I would use the former style for all of them.
  • That's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from magiciandude

[edit]

Thank you everyone who left a comment, sorry I've been really busy this week but I should be able to start it early next week to address everybody's concerns. Erick (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho:, @Vestrian24Bio:, @ChrisTheDude:, I believe I have addressed everything brought up in your comments. @Vestrian24Bio:, I addressed everything except for the awards that have been presented only once its inceptions. Any suggestions? Erick (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry meant to ping @History6042: for the last comment. Erick (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good, Support. Vestrian24Bio 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I spotted a couple of issues with the descriptions of the awards. "The Rising Star Award is presented to an artist's "emerging talent’s success....."" doesn't make sense at all. I would suggest "The Rising Star Award recognizes an "emerging talent’s success....."" There's a couple that say the award "recognizes an artist who have", which should be "an artist who has". I also think that "The Unbreakable Award is presented to an artist for "collaboration between Latin women artists who have made an indelible impact on the music industry"" would be better as simply "The Unbreakable Award is presented for "collaboration between Latin women artists who have made an indelible impact on the music industry"" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Sigrid

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrid is a Norwegian singer-songwriter, who is probably best known for winning the BBC Sound Of in 2018. This list consists of all the songs she has recorded throughout her career. While working on this list, I used similar FLs as inspiration. Looking forward to your comments! Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "She also collaborated with other artists" => "She has also collaborated with other artists"
  • " Norwegian state television NRK's show Urørt" - show title should be in italics
  • "and was the first single off her debut EP, Don't Kill My Vibe (2017)" => "and it was the first single off her debut EP, Don't Kill My Vibe (2017)"
  • "such as Noonie Bao who co-wrote "Business Dinners" and "Never Mine" and Oscar Holter, who co-wrote and produced the single "Don't Feel Like Crying"." => "such as Noonie Bao, who co-wrote "Business Dinners" and "Never Mine", and Oscar Holter, who co-wrote and produced the single "Don't Feel Like Crying"."
  • "Sigrid worked again with Sjølie who co-wrote and produced "Mistake Like You", and Warren who contributed to three songs, including" => "Sigrid worked again with Sjølie, who co-wrote and produced "Mistake Like You", and Warren, who contributed to three songs, including"
  • "A Driver Saved My Night" correctly sorts under D so it should also be placed under D alphabetically
  • The Hype (in the album column) should sort under H
  • "The song was initially meant for Sigrid, however it was given to and released by Lxandra" - this is a complete sentence so it needs a full stop
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]

@Sebbirrrr:

Vestrian24Bio 11:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orangesclub

[edit]

This list is in very good shape, I have few comments.

That's all I have! orangesclub 🍊 04:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Mutiny players

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this list as a continuation of my project to improve pages for defunct MLS teams. Brindille1 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

[edit]
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |align=left|{{sortname|Joseph|Addo|Joe Addo}} [...] becomes !scope=row align=left|{{sortname|Joseph|Addo|Joe Addo}} <newline> [...]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • I appreciate the attempt to use the team colors, but the light yellow on light blue is extremely difficult to read for anyone with reduced vision (fails the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines for contrast, I used [1] to check #ffff00 vs #0bbff2). If you keep the blue, the text should be black; if you want to keep the yellow, the blue needs to be much darker.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 13:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I would move "A total of 80 players appeared in MLS matches for the club, including 7 different goalkeepers. Additionally, Matt Nyman appeared for the club in the 2001 U.S. Open Cup." to the end of the second paragraph or even the start of the third. It just seems a bit odd that you mention that one guy appeared only in the Open Cup before you introduce what the Open Cup actually is.........
  • "In its six season" - missing S on the end
  • Diaz Arce is initially listed under D but if you re-sort the column he jumps up to be among the As
  • "As of the 2024 season, Garlick holds the record for the most saves in a season" - the club record? the MLS record? the world record?
  • "Below is a list of players who have not appeared in a league match, but have played for the team in other competitions." => "Below is a list of players who did not appear in a league match, but played for the team in other competitions."
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • Add {{Use American English}}
  • The short description is just a tad long per WP:SD40. What about "Tampa Bay Mutiny soccer club players" or "Tampa Bay Mutiny soccer club player list" or something similar? Falls in line with the examples at WP:SDLIST.
  • The alt text in the lead image does not provide adequate context per MOS:ALTCON
  • The wikilinks to United States and Canada in the lead is likely a MOS:OVERLINK
  • The same for the alt text context could be said about the other images
  • I won't go into deep detail since I've seen it's already done above, but addressing color contrast issues and table captions are a must
  • "Notes" ---> "Reference(s)" or "Ref(s)" in the column editors - more descriptive header
  • I believe the flags in the tables are a MOS:SPORTSFLAG issue

Think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • All alt texts need more context.
  • Some archive links are needed.
  • I think that yellow on blue is a violation of WP:COLOR.
  • Should more detailed positions, for example wingers, be added?
  • I don't think GKs should be in their own separate table.
  • "All statistics are for MLS regular season games only." should be in a EFN note.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333

[edit]

Oppose. The current and archived table links do not verify the stats. This is because they are pointing to the wrong archived links. For example, Addo should be this 2014 link as the 2024 and current version do not have this data. I tried looking at the career stats and match log but they are blank. Other examples that I checked that need fixing include Hunjak, Budnick and Nyman. Therefore, I think all of the 2024-2025 tables links needs to be adjusted to earlier archived versions with these stats. As the tables make up the majority of the list, this mainly fails verification.--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Winter Olympics medal table

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second last Winter Olympic medal table that is not featured status, and it's a relatively short one. What's interesting about this one is that Morocco competed for the first time, and East and West Germany entered separate teams for the time. This will be Olympic medal table #12 and Winter medal table #4 for me and I aimed to match the formatting of the other previously promoted lists. As always, I'll do my best to respond promptly and to address any and all feedback that is brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98

[edit]

Just one general comment to start. This article seems awfully short. Are the others in this series as short as this one? The only other article I've seen is another one you put forward recently – 1972 Summer Olympics medal table – and it looks like it has more meat. Maybe the 1968 Winter Olympics were just relatively uneventful?

More specific comments:

  1. "The 1968 Winter Olympics, officially known as the X Olympic Winter Games, was a winter multi-sport event..." "was" should be "were".
  2. "This included first-time entrants Morocco" "entrants" should be "entrant".
  3. "including the team relay event in biathlon" I would say "in the biathlon".
  4. "Norway won the most medals overall, with 14, and the most gold medals, with six." This may be personal style preference, but I would put the "with x" in parentheses (ie. Norway won the most medals overall (with 14), and the most gold medals (with six).) But either way is probably fine.
  5. "French alpine skier Jean-Claude Killy had the most gold medals with three." I would use "won" instead of "had".
  6. In the infobox: "Swedish cross-country skier Toini Gustafsson (pictured) won three medals (two gold, one silver) at the 1968 Winter Olympics..." I don't think the "(pictured)" is needed, and I would use the phrase "two gold and one silver" rather than just separating them with a comma. Ditto with that same scenario in the second paragraph.

Just a personal note: I never liked the purple shading of the host nation on these tables, but this is most definitely not the forum for that discussion. :)

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Bgsu98! I implemented your feedback, with the exception of 4 and the a part of number 6 (the medals in brackets). I feel these are stylistic choices and I wanted to remain consistent with other lists that have been done already. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they are personal preferences and I also understand wanting to maintain consistency among articles that are in a series. I'm happy to support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Source review

[edit]
  • Refs 18, 19, and 20 all spell the name of the host city as "Gronoble" in stead of "Grenoble."
Fine...  ;) MikeVitale 18:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All references have archive links, and spot-checked archive links go to the same place as the original article.
  • Date formats are consistent.
  • Spot-checked references (both original and archived) support the material in the article they purport to support.

That's all from me. --MikeVitale 18:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Gronoble typos have been fixed... Support. --MikeVitale 18:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, those are embarrassing typos! Thanks for the source review and fixing those @MikeVitale! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd love to take credit, I only pointed out the typos. It was @Bgsu98 who actually fixed "Gronoble".  :) --MikeVitale 02:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

[edit]

Men's T20 World Cup tournaments

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 09:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My previous FLC has been promoted now after 2 months, so here's the next one in the topic. Vestrian24Bio 09:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Arconning

[edit]
  • The sole image used is from mapchart.net which explicitly says in its website that its works are copyrighted, so this should either be replaced or removed entirely as its a copyright violation.
  • "West Indies...", "The West Indies..."
  • "in Twenty20 International (T20I) format,", "in the Twenty20 International (T20I) format,"
  • "World Twenty20 to Men's T20 World Cup.", "the World Twenty20 to the Men's T20 World Cup."
  • "The table below provides a summary of the performances of teams over past T20 World Cups, as of the end of the 2024 tournament. *Teams are ordered by their best performance, then winning percentage, then (if equal) by alphabetical order.", this would work better as a note.
    @Arconning:
    • Map removed.
    • Not sure if this is what you meant by a note, take a look...
    All else done. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give my support. Arconning (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "West Indies, England and India have won the title twice each" => "The West Indies, England and India have won the title twice each"
  • "is the Super 8 appearance by the United States in 2024" - without further explanation somewhere in the article "Super 8 appearance" is meaningless
  • "while the worst result by a Test playing nation is the Super 12 appearance by Zimbabwe in 2022" - same here
  • "No title winners have yet defended their title in the following edition" => "No title winners have yet retained their title in the following edition"
  • I would move the legend to above the "Team performances by tournament" table as that is the only table to which it applies. The bit about the dagger can be put above the tables to which it applies, and it should be reworded to simply "Test playing nations / ICC full members are indicated by a dagger symbol (†)."
  • The last column of the debutant teams table looks odd with the individual numbers left aligned but the total centre aligned
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude:
    • Reworded Super 8 and Super 12.
    • Should the last column of the debutant teams table be all centered or all left..?
    All else done. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say all centred looks better -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW I meant that the legend should be immediately above the "Team performances by tournament" table. It can be under the L2 heading for that section, it doesn't need its own L2 heading -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks, done. Vestrian24Bio 11:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bgsu98

[edit]

I will do the source review for this article when I get home this afternoon, but I can tell you already that most of the sources are not archived and will need to be. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I will do the source review tonight. I will also note anything that catches my eye, but the emphasis will be on the sources. I will note that I was excited to read an article about crickets since they're one of my favorite insects only to realize it was a sports article...

  • As noted above, all sources need to be archived.
  • Dates do not show a consistent format. For example, Source No. 3 shows an access date of 2024-12-12 and an archive date of 13 November 2024. I would recommend picking one format and ensuring that all dates adhere to it.
  • Some sources have improper author citations. For example, Source No. 3 lists a last name of Media and a first name of USA Cricket. Either that's the most unfortunate name a set of parents could give a child, or else the citation template imported the data improperly. When entering sources, you have to ensure that data was input properly, and sometimes that means removing bogus authors and re-entering that information as a website or publisher. Source No. 4 also has an improper author.
  • I spot-checked the following sources to see if they supported what they were purported to:
  1. No. 3 – Checks out.
  2. No. 6 – Used as a reference for the statement Kenya and Scotland were the only non-Test playing nations to be featured in the inaugural edition. Neither Kenya nor Scotland are identified in the source.
  3. No. 8 – Checks out.
  4. No. 12 – Checks out.
  5. No. 18 – I'm going to be honest; I don't know anything about cricket, so I found it difficult to analyze this source, but it appears to check out. Did teams get to come back and play again after losing in an earlier round?
  6. No. 25 – The only nations identified specifically in that source are India and Sri Lanka as hosts. None of the other nations with a Q next to them are identified in the source.

Regarding the table labeled Details of Men's T20 World Cup finals, what purpose is served with the rows in light blue versus those in white?

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98:
  • Most part of the lead are summary of article, thus don't have much citations as they're not mandatory per MOS:LEADCITE.
  • Most ESPNcricinfo sources uses the {{ESPNcricinfo 2}} citation template which doesn't support archives as cricinfo sources are unlikely to link rot. Will have the others archived.
  • The light blue rows are just for a visual sense, to differentiate each row, when the table gets too long and no other meaning or whatsoever.
All else done. Vestrian24Bio 13:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using color for decorative purposes is inappropriate per MOS:COLOR. I would remove the blue. Most tables on Wikipedia are plain white and do just fine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98: That's not what MOS:COLOR says; it actually doesn't say anything about decorative purposes at all. It says not to use color to convey information (on its own). This is just decorative; the only issue would be contrast between the blue background and the blue links, and [2] says it's fine for that (#0033cc vs #ddeeff). --PresN 18:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the clarification! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you meant by your first point, as I didn't say anything about the lead not having citations. As everything appears to have been addressed and the issue with the table clarified (though I still don't think the blue is necessary), I'm happy to support your article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doechii discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 14:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture this: you're at the mall, shopping for groceries at 8PM. The radio is blasting the 100th top 40 song released within the past three years. And suddenly, you hear the opening tune of a timeless classic: "Somebody That I Used to Know". You're relieved, knowing that for once, no new songs are terrorizing the mall at the moment.

...except that isn't the voice of Gotye in the airwaves. You have been tricked; that's actually "Anxiety" (2025) by one of the fastest-rising stars of this decade, Doechii. She's a rapper who's been labelmates with SZA and Kendrick Lamar, already a legendary duo in their own right. And at this year's Grammys, she recently won a Best Rap Album Grammy for her latest mixtape.

Having witnessed Doechii's slow rise to stardom since 2023, I recently endeavored to bring this discography list to FL status as one of my latest content-creating projects. There aren't a lot of discography FLs for black women musicians out there, so I hope this is a step further into filling this particular niche. I hope you enjoy what I have to offer. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 14:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Orangesclub

[edit]
  • References 5 and 70 are duplicated
    • Merged - Elias
  • Some columns have widths defined but some don't, so one EP title is wrapped meanwhile titles for guest appearances have unexplained empty space. I would encourage consistency, especially seeing as her discography is still small enough that the tables aren't getting squished (see Michael W. Smith discography for an example).
    • I think I got it handled - Elias
  • Can the intro prose be expanded a little, so that the summary table isn't cramped next to the infobox? Alternatively use of {clear} would be good, again so information isn't unnecessarily squished. This is perhaps more of a preference for me as I'm a Vector 2022 user but seeing as its a default it'll probably affect many readers.
    • I'm a bit apprehensive about this comment because I firmly believe the lead is already a proper summary of the list's contents, and there are no squishing issues on my laptop and desktop screens. I think in this scenario any possible issues with squishing are just dependent on what device is being used so I don't think it's one that needs addressing. - Elias
  • All references should be archived - these chart websites have a way of rebranding and wiping all the old links
    • See my reply to a similar comment above + given Doechii's music is still charting and rising in many countries, archiving them may be a bit too soon. - Elias
  • Is there a reason "Wat U Sed" is in the lead artist section? It seems to be described as a feature
    • I must have misplaced it, my bad! - Elias

That's all I have for now, it's great to see how much love she is getting! orangesclub 🍊 03:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangesclub, thank you! I appreciate these replies. It's indeed nice to see the former weed-smoking storytime vlogger finally get her flowers as the artist she is responses above Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following up to see if all your concerns have been addressed @Orangesclub. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your changes, but I won't be able to support it without the archives. The live website will and should still be the source of truth, but chart websites change without any notice and if they haven't been archived they are just lost forever. I feel like this is the perfect time to capture an archive, ie when promoting to featured list, because too many of these charts will void out before anyone takes the care to preserve them. I will note that other featured discography lists of artists that haven't peaked yet have the archives in place. orangesclub 🍊 21:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangesclub, well I did the best I could. Certification references cannot be archived because they are template-generated and there is no parameter for archives. That aside, please check if everything is in order. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, happy to support! All good on the certifications, I'm aware of that (and so many certification websites don't support archiving anyway 🥲) but the rest looks good. orangesclub 🍊 04:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • A short description needs added per WP:SDLIST
    • Per WP:SDNONE the short description "none" will suffice. In this page, the "entirety of the title will be reasonably clear to English-speaking readers worldwide."
  • Not a requirement by any means, but this is one place where {{sronly}} would come in handy if you wanted to use it
    • Apologies, but I am unsure how this template can be used in the article. May you give an example?
  • Alligator Bites Never Heal is missing a reference (which I assume is supposed to support a release date, label, etc.)
    • In discography pages, it's customary for album entries with their own articles to not require citations
  • Any particular reason why this same album has two refs for the peak in the Irish column, which appear to list different peaks? If the one in the header is outdated, it can be removed and the Official Charts one moved up.
    • Not sure, I'm not the one who updates these peaks. I moved the Official Charts citation up, though I'd imagine someone will replace that citation months down the line when Doechii releases more albums.
  • Ref 8 (currently Rolling Stone for me) needs |url-access=subscription
    • Added the parameter (though it should be "limited" because RS shows a limited amount of free articles before the annoying paywall)
  • "The AV Club" --> "The A.V. Club" (official name; currently ref 22 for me)
    • Done

I think that's all I have! Wish you could've seen the pure shock on my face when I first heard Anxiety on the radio and thought it was gonna be Somebody That I Used To Know 😅 TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I had the same feeling while I was shopping in some gaudy upscale mall :^) more on-topic, I have replied to all of your comments above. Thanks for stopping by @TheDoctorWho! Sorry this took a bit. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 07:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses:
  1. {{sronly}} essentially makes a table caption visible to screen readers only when nearby text (such as prose or headers) sufficiently describe the table being presented to avoid a duplication of text. So for example, with the first table, you could use {{sronly|List of mixtapes, with selected details and chart positions}}, this would still meet accessibility requirements by providing a caption, but would hide it from those that don't need it. (Like I said, using this isn't a requirement, and I wouldn't oppose if it isn't used. I just like to provide alternatives sometimes.)
I think the tables are already fine on their own. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "In discography pages, it's customary for album entries with their own articles to not require citations I'm not convinced this is the case, Ithaca discography, Kittie discography, Tages discography, and Bini discography are all recent FL's that have sourced release dates despite album articles existing.
Not something I usually do (and not something that happens for discography pages of way more popular artists)... but I guess adding a citation here won't hurt... Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I also have to slightly disagree with the absence of a short description, because not all English speakers worldwide will know who Doechii is. SDLIST gives an example of this with the sitcom Friends, a good short description for List of Friends episodes would be "Episodes of American television sitcom". It should not be "none", since the term "Friends" – no matter how well known to readers familiar with American TV – will not necessarily be clear to other English-speaking readers worldwide. While "Discography" is clear, Doechii could easily be a British pop artist or an Australian country singer
Looking at a sample of entries on Wikipedia:Featured lists#Discographies, I see that SDNONE is consistently applied. I do not think this needs changing. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho, responses above. I do not know how to respond to individual comments on a numbered list so apologies that the numbering format got messed up. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately going to oppose on lack of a proper short description then. The instructions laid out at WP:SDESC are pretty clear to me, and I don't feel comfortable saying that this is one of Wikipedia's best lists with one that doesn't describe the contents of the list. WP:SDEXAMPLES is pretty clear on this too, in the entry for Burt Reynolds filmography where it says "Even very famous American celebrities may not be well known to all English speakers: a proper short description helps readers of different cultures as well as those who fall outside the person's usual fan demographic." and gives the example "Performances by American actor" an SD. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: hm alright... I can see where you are coming from with your rationale so I changed the shortdesc. Looks like someone has to change all the other shortdescs on those discography FLs then; maybe someone can run AWB on those? Though I am unsure if such a massive change will face some opposition... Regardless your suggestion seems convincing enough and I respect the way you stand your ground at least. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'm happy to support! This should definitely be changed on the other articles mentioned, but one article at a time (as done here) is a start. Nice work on this list by the way, apologies if I was a pain 😅. 06:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

SB19 videography

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 17:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how is everyone feeling? I am back with my fifth FL nomination, another SB19 list! This comprehensive list documents the group's appearances on music videos, TV, films, online shows, and commercials since they debuted in 2018. This has been part of my ongoing efforts to eventually have the group get their own Featured Topic on Wikipedia. I recently finished revamping the list, and I believe I have drastically improved the list's quality over its previous state. With the help of other similar existing FLs as basis, I think this list is now ready to be considered for FL. I would be happy to address all your concerns, suggestions, and feedback; they are much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers in advance who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 17:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • All tables need captions..
Done
  • Can Park Se-eun be linked?
Not done: There's not a Wikipedia page for Park Se-eun, and if I were to WP:REDLINK her, there's not really much information about her to redlink or create her page in the first place without being challenged in the long run.
  • Can rows that are the same be merged, for example column of region in television is almost all the same.
Done: I personally avoid merging cells much (because for me it just makes it difficult to read the tables), hence why it was like that previously. Although I merged some cells in the latest revision as suggested. There are only cells that I chose not to, specifically: 1) those with the {{N/A}} template, since it makes it difficult to edit the page using Visual Editor; 2) Notes because I think each show must have their own distinct notes row; and, 3) "Commercials" table under the "Company" column, so that it's easier to count how many commercials they have been in.
  • Same with years.
Done
  • Could a table be made with summaries of the numbers of how many things they have been in? For example, Bini videography.
Not done: Actually, the infobox template ({{Infobox artist discography}} used in that page was misused, and was intended for discography lists, not videographies. Also, there's not really a proper infobox for videographies / filmographies lists. Other similar pages that are also FLs stand without infoboxes anyway.
Hi, History6042 and Relayed! I happened to come across this FLC and noticed the issue. Relayed is right—the infobox was misused in that article, and I’ve already removed it. I’m not sure who added it, but as Relayed pointed out, videographies typically don’t use infoboxes. Just thought I’d drop by and mention it. Best of luck with the FLC! AstrooKai (Talk) 13:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, AstrooKai. Thanks! – Relayed (t • c) 12:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, History6042. Thanks for having a look and leaving some suggestions. I have looked into your comments and made necessary changes, and they should be visible now in the latest revision of the page. Some were not implemented; I have also left comments above as to why that is. Let me know if you're okay with the changes and if you have anything else. Thank you! – Relayed (t • c) 12:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, everything looks good, I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! – Relayed (t • c) 12:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "and a few films" - "a few" sounds a bit too casual. As films form such a tiny section of their overall videography, I would be tempted to remove this completely
Removed
  • "they only achieved breakthrough" => "they only achieved a breakthrough"
Done
  • "In addition, they have collaborated with Ben&Ben" => "In addition, they collaborated with Ben&Ben"
Done
  • "The group also endorsed numerous brands" => "The group have also endorsed numerous brands"
Done
  • " the group stars in their own variety show series," => " the group star in their own variety show series,"
Done
  • "and have once ventured into acting with main roles in self-released online short film, Ex-Mas (2020),[37] and web series, Our Zone: Anniversary Series (2021) and School Buddies (2022)" => "and have ventured into acting with main roles in the self-released online short film, Ex-Mas (2020),[37] and the web series, Our Zone: Anniversary Series (2021) and School Buddies (2022)"
Done
  • Descriptions like "A video depicting SB19 wandering in outdoor spaces." which are not complete sentences should not have full stops
Done: Thanks for spotting that. I have revised the descriptions to be all full-on sentences. Let me know if I missed any.
  • "after which shows them with apl.de.ap carrying on with their party on a yacht." => "after which it shows them with apl.de.ap carrying on with their party on a yacht."
Done
  • No description for "Time".....?
Done: Simula at Wakas and the music video for "Time" were just released yesterday, April 25, so there's not much information going on right now about the video's plot (so I was planning to wait it out), but I guess I can add a temporary one based on its synopsis reported by ABS-CBN News.
  • Is the "role" column really needed in the TV and web tables?
Removed: I guess we can remove the column since they do not have specific characters portrayed at the moment.
Hi, ChrisTheDude! Thanks a lot for leaving some comments. I believe I have sorted them all now. Let me know if you have anything else or if I missed something. I have also left some commentary. Thanks again! – Relayed (t • c) 15:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Hi, Chris! This is a friendly courtesy ping, in case the first one didn't go through, since it's been two days since I replied. Take your time, though, no pressure! Do let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 13:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • This article needs a short description per WP:SDLIST
Done: Currently set from "none" to "Videography of Filipino boy band"
  • The alt text for the lead image needs modified per MOS:ALT (specifically the importance of context portion and the example of Elizabeth II
Done: Removed unnecessary descriptions
  • The same could be said for several of the images in the music video section
Done: ditto
  • This is one place where {{sronly}} may be useful, it's not a requirement by any means, but since all of the table captions are directly below their respective headers it's okay if they're hidden
Done
  • Given that there's only one region in the "Commercials" table, is it necessary to include?
Removed: I guess that can go as well.
  • References 27 and 68 are duplicates and should be merged
Done: Merged

I think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TheDoctorWho! I'll address your comments soon. Will ping once done. Thanks for stopping by! – Relayed (t • c) 17:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TheDoctorWho! I believe I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if I missed something or if you have anything else. Thanks again! – Relayed (t • c) 16:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! – Relayed (t • c) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Uganda

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone 20:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda has three sites on the main list and a further seven on the tentative list. Standard style. The nomination for Tanzania is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 20:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • I think the list should be alphabetical, if this is wrong, that's fine, its not that big a deal.
  • All sources need archive links.
  • Publishers should be linked whenever possible
  • In the row of Rwenzori Park, I think legendary is unnecessary.
  • You use DMY dates in sources but MDY in "November 20, 1987" in prose.
  • Should the tentative list be added to the map.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @History6042 Thanks! I fixed the date and archived the link. UNESCO is already linked in the intro, otherwise we would have sea of blue in the references. The table is sortable so alphabetically sorting is an option. The default is chronological, though. The word legendary is appropriate here, because of the backstory, see the source. And we only have main sites on the map, tentative ones come and go. Tone 17:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Review by Easternsahara
[edit]
  • I couldn't notice anything wrong with the prose or the lead
  • All sources are reliable and match the information that they're cited for.
  • All are archived
  • Stable

Support Easternsahara (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Summer Olympics medal table

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief intermission for NFL seasons lists, I'm back to nominating the series of Olympic lists! This would be Olympic medal table #11 and Summer Olympic medal table #8. As for what was notable about these individual games, Mark Spitz won SEVEN golds! Which was a record for 36 years until Phelps won eight at the 2008 Summer Olympics. There was also 11 new competitors, which is a lot for this late into the Olympics. As always, I'll do my best to respond promptly and to address any and all feedback that is brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98

[edit]

I enjoyed reading this article and only have a few comments.

  1. In the infobox, I would put the flag before the city. (West Germany Munich, West Germany)
  2. There should be an and between Togo and Upper Volta.
  3. "The games featured 195 events in 21 sports across 27 disciplines." What is the difference between a sport and a discipline?
  4. You have several sports wikilinked, but not archery.
  5. "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation and again threatened to boycott the games over those policies." I would maybe say "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation and again threatened a boycott."
  6. "Four days before the opening ceremonies the IOC voted to rescind their invitation..." You need a comma after ceremonies.
  7. "North Korea and Uganda won their nations' first Summer Olympic gold medals, which was the first medal of any kind for North Korea.[7][22] Colombia and Niger also won their nations' first Olympic medals of any kind." Just as a point of interest, you might specify in what sport these nations won their first medals.
  8. "16-year-old American swimmer Rick DeMont had originally won gold in the men's 400 metre freestyle event but was disqualified..." You need a comma after event.
  9. "Events in judo used a repechage system which also resulted in two bronze medals being awarded." You need a comma after system.
  10. "In women's uneven bars..." I would put a the in front of women's uneven bars.
  11. On the table of medal changes, I would probably left justify the first column.
  12. "Biddle had tried to get tested following the race, at the advice of the team's manager, just in case of a disqualification, but he was turned away." – I would use the following: "Biddle had tried to be tested following the race on the advice of his team's manager, in the event of a disqualification, but this request was denied."
  13. "The Belgian team finished fourth, but did not receive the bronze medal..." I would pluralize medal.
  14. One doped athlete caused the entire team to lose their medals? *stares in 2022 figure skating team event*
  15. "DeMont had declared... leading to the situation which resulted in his gold medal being stripped." The end of that sentence sounds awkward. Maybe "leading to his (or the) gold medal being stripped from him"

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review @Bgsu98!
1 – So, for whatever reason, it's apparently been common practice to do so before the country instead of the city name. Honestly this isn't something I had ever considered actually.
  • I think it looks weird as hell, and some of the formatting of these Olympic articles baffles me, but it should probably follow whatever the precedent is for similar Olympic articles.
  • I'm not opposed to changing them, and I could do it for all of them. Do you have an example of any series of events where it is shown at the beginning instead, just so I can point to that if questioned?
2 – Done.
3 – A good example would be "aquatics", which is defined as an Olympic sport. It has 5 sub disciplines, artistic swimming (synchronized swimming), diving, marathon swimming, swimming (the regular sprint or regular swim races), and water polo. Cycling as another example has BMX freestyle, BMX racing, mountain biking, road biking, and track racing. They're essentially sub sports of a large classification of sport.
4 – Done.
5 – So, I wanted to be clear when I wrote that that it was over the policies, as opposed to simply being upset that Rhodesia was invited in generic.
  • There could still be a better way of wording it. Perhaps: "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation due to Rhodesia's racist policies and again threatened a boycott."
  • I'm not sure that would be an improvement though, I'm trying to highlight that they're doing so again. I've found that sources also specifically stated "racial policies" as opposed to "racist policies".
6 – Done
7 – I've considered it, but applying that consistently across these types of lists would actually end up being surprisingly difficult. There's often difficulties pinpointing which athlete won a NOC's first Olympic or gold medal, based on people winning on the same day but exact time keeping for when the medals were won being difficult to iron out. I think it would also make some of these lists far too large in prose and run on sentences.
  • I do understand what you're saying, but in the case of North Korea, Uganda, and Niger, there is no question as they each only won one medal. Colombia is hazier.
8 – Done.
9 – I feel like this actually isn't a necessary comma, there's no pause or break up of the sentence. It's rather straight forward from my perspective.
  • It's a relative clause and needs a comma.
  • Done.
10 – Done.
11 – Unfortunately this is a preexisting template which I'm not comfortable modifying for this. Additionally, I think the rank being centered actually makes more sense.
  • I thought this was a simple table and did not realize it was a template. Edited to add: I just looked and this is a regular table. If it were me, I would left-justify everything except the numbers, but it is not something I would hold up a FL promotion over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12 – So, I was specific in the phrasing of "turned away", as that's what sources say. Oddly the phrasing denied didn't come up when I was working on this one. I've mostly implemented this suggestion though.
13 – Done.
14 – That is correct, the entire team was disqualified as a result. After looking at what you're referring to... Damn it! I wish it happened then as well to get Canada a bronze!
  • I was heated for multiple reasons. I did want to see the Canadian team receive the bronze medals. Roman Sadovsky got yoked into the team event at the last minute after the original men's competitor was quarantined with COVID, didn't exactly have a great performance in front of the largest audience of his life, got tons of cyber-BS from the armchair critics, and I would have loved to see him become an Olympic bronze medalist by default.
15 – Done.
Most of what you've suggested has been implemented, but there's a few points for you to reply to. Thanks again for the solid review! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Bgsu98, I believe I've responded to everything that needed a response. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Arconning

[edit]

List of Portland Trail Blazers seasons

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the team's season is over, I felt like it was a good time to finally nominate the list. I took inspiration for the table from List of Seattle SuperSonics seasons since it is a recent related FL. -- ZooBlazer 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

It seems like the first two columns of the table are redundant. You could remove the first one and it wouldn't affect anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 One covers the NBA season, while one covers the Blazers specific season. I didn't originally include both, but added the NBA one because List of Seattle SuperSonics seasons passed FLC a few months ago with it included. -- ZooBlazer 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it’s redundant there too. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98 Alright, I removed it. -- ZooBlazer 15:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Most sources are archived, all of them should be.
  • There is a column for Conference standings and Division standings. I think one should be added for overall for example when they won the NBA, 1, if they lost in NBA finals, 2, and so on.
    • I'm not sure if that is necessary when that info is included else where in the table already.
  • I do not really follow American sports so please tell me if this is wrong but are there promotions and relegations to different leagues, if so please add those seasons where they were in different leagues.
    • Nope, nothing like that in the NBA.
  • Is it necessary to list which conference when they are in western every time?
    • It's just something that is included with NBA and other leagues like the NFL seasons
  • I think linking seasons is overlinking.
    • Unlinked
  • Like how some of the head coach's rows are merged, I think that should be done to the rest of the columns too.
    • I feel like that would create a lot of empty space as some columns would be really long compared to coaches.
  • Ping when done please. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @History6042 Thanks for the feedback! I think I've addressed everything. -- ZooBlazer 06:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]
  • 1992–93 row – you put both refs after Porter, move the appropriate one to be after Robinson instead
  • 1998–99 row – you did the same thing here for Grant and Dunleavy
  • Duplinks are allowed in tables and I think you should link Damian Lillard again in the 2018–19 row, this would also be consistent with your linking of Bill Walton in earlier rows
  • You linked Rolland Todd twice in the head coach column but you didn't do this with other coaches. Be consistent please
    I unlinked him. Should I do it that way with no extra coach links, or go the opposite route and always link the coaches in the table? -- ZooBlazer
  • Fix spacing for the P. J. Carlesimo entry, you're missing a space between the period and J
  • Might I suggest usage of the hr template, similar to the head coach column, when there are multiple award winners in a single row?
  • I'd probably suggest changing "basketball-reference.com" to "Basketball Reference – This is what's often been done for other sites under the Sports Reference umbrella. I'd at least ask for it to be "Basketball-reference"
  • Ref 4 – add Associated Press as the agency
  • Ref 9 – the title does not match what you're apparently trying to reference (not NYT, not correct title, etc.), and you would also want to add the via parameter pointing to Google News Archive. You'd also want to include the page number.
  • Ref 22 – add Associated Press as the agency
  • Ref 81 – link is dead
  • Ref 88 – note as subscription needed
  • Ref 98 – the author is Tadd, not Todd(!?)

That's what I've got for now, but I expect I'll have more after a second look over. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Thanks for the comments! I think I addressed everything. -- ZooBlazer 20:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer: I think the only suggestion I have left is to move Robinson below Porter in the 92/93 row to keep entries consistently sorted by last name when they're both in the same cell. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Done. -- ZooBlazer 18:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since U.S. Figure Skating Championships was just promoted to Featured List, I am now nominating this one as well. The results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, a history is provided, I believe the sources are properly formatted, and relevant photographs are used to reflect both the present day and historical contexts. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • As this is a British topic then British English should be used per MOS:TIES. Therefore "organized" should be "organised", "focused" should be "focussed", "recognized" should be "recognised", "medalists" should be "medallists"
  • "a separate competition for women was established in 1927" - wasn't Madge Sayers a woman? Was the competition mixed prior to this?
  • Yes, as I wrote at the beginning of the paragraph, women were not barred from competing even though figure skating was (at the time) dominated by men. So, yes, several women did compete prior to the establishment of a separate women's event. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is stuff in the lead (e.g. the fact that they are held in Sheffield) which is not in the body
  • Is there any way to merge the last three micro-paragraphs in the History section either with each other or into other paragraphs?
  • The flag icons in the tables violate MOS:FLAG as they are not accompanied by any other way of identifying the countries. In particular it's essentially impossible at that size to distinguish between the flags of Australia and New Zealand
  • Some of the events are listed as being held in Golders Green, Streatham, Westminster, etc, all of which are districts of London, but others just show "London" generically. Is it not known exactly where they were held?
  • Okay, I am not familiar with which of those locations might be London districts (well, I did recognize Wembley). I went by what the sources stated, and some of them did not identify a location other than the ice rink. If I find out where in London an ice rink is located, does that qualify as original research? Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]

Leaving a placeholder comment here. My schedule is a bit hectic through Monday so ping me if I haven't returned within a week. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The results of the competition are among the criteria used to determine the British entries to the World Figure Skating Championships, the World Junior Figure Skating Championships, the European Figure Skating Championships, and the Winter Olympics." - none of this is actually mentioned in the article, which is a MOS:LEAD violation
  • As usual, "Swedish Challenge Cup" should probably redirect to that section, or the text shouldn't be in bold
  • "Although figure skating at this time was dominated by men, and women also competed in the championships, a separate category for women was established in 1927." - this reads a little odd, perhaps swapping the first two bits around, something like: "Although women competed in the competition, figure skating was dominated by men at the time so a separate category for women was established in 1927."
  • "The British Championships were open to skaters from members of the British Commonwealth; skaters from Australia, Canada, and South Africa occasionally competed." - are these the only other countries that skaters are allowed to compete from? Are others allowed but no one ever has? Might be good to expand on this briefly into general competition eligibility in terms of nationality.
  • As I understand it, anyone from a Commonwealth nation could compete, but those three are really the only ones that had notable skating programs. Also New Zealand. As for whether other skaters competed, I'm not really sure, since the results never really expounded on anyone other than the top 3 in any given competition. If skaters from, say, New Zealand also competed, but placed lower than third, it wouldn't have been publicized. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 2010, the British Championships have been held at IceSheffield in Sheffield." - perhaps a brief mention of places other competitions have been held? Looking at the table I know it would quickly turn INDISCRIMINATE to list every location, but places like London for example is a prime example where it's actually been held more times than Sheffield.
  • I only mentioned Sheffield because it has become the de facto permanent home of the championships. If, at some point in the future, the location changes, I'd just remove this. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that everything looks good! Tables have captions, images have alt text. Nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]
  • "They have been interrupted only three times since their inception." when where those times?
  • Paragraph two in the lead is one big sentence. Could it be broken up?
  • Note the former name in the lead
  • I don't think the "(with x)" need to be in parentheses.
  • "The British Championships were open to skaters from members of the British Commonwealth; skaters from Australia, Canada, and South Africa occasionally competed." I don't think the second half is needed as the first half states that commonwealth members can partake
  • I wanted to specify those countries because they show up on the tables. Therefore, a reader isn't wondering why someone from Canada medaled at the British Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occasionally the completion wont happen but a city is still listed, for example 1949 says "No men's competitors" yet lists London.
  • The records section is unsourced, yet the information is sourced in the lead. Could these citations be move out of the lead and into the records section per WP:LEADCITE
  • "Separate English style championships continued in Great Britain, but they were not recognised as the official British Championships." citation needed
Ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 17:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Monmonier bibliography

[edit]
Nominator(s): GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 14:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria and is a meaningful topic to the discipline of geography. I've spent a lot of time on this and a few other lists, and believe this is likely one of if not the best one I've made. I'd like to take any feedback from here and put it towards other lists I've made. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 14:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from History6042

[edit]
  • Style is spelt wrong in the wikitexts of some tables.
  • Tables need row scopes.
  • Tables need column scopes.
  • Tables need captions.
  • Image needs alternative text.
  • Caption of image is capitalised wrong.
  • There are no citations in most of the tables.
  • All publishers should be linked.
  • A lot of identifiers are missing.
  • All online sources need to be archived.
  • I am going to oppose this based on the amount of uncited claims. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

[edit]

This is an expansion of some of what History6042 said.

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! style="text-align:center;" | Title becomes !scope=col style="text-align:center;" | Title. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | ''Maps, Distortion, and Meaning'' becomes !scope=row | ''Maps, Distortion, and Meaning''. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 03:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Why does one entry in the first table need EIGHT citations?
  • The notes should be moved into the "title" column. There's really no need for a separate "notes" column when only six entries have notes and (as a result) some tables have absolutely nothing in the notes column -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • To reply to the first one, need is a strong term, but the citations are mostly book reviews in peer-reviewed publications. A function I try to aim for when writing Wikipedia articles is inclusion of sources for others to use in their writing, if someone wants to write about the topic, these are a valuable resource. Further, it's hard to pick one or two, especially when they are mixed "positive/negative" reviews. Different types of sources, such as magazines/newspaper, are also included a bit. Deleting some but leaving others would feel a bit random.
    • Thanks for the note suggestion. I got that idea from somewhere (using another page as a template), and will remove the column.
    GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 14:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Tanzania

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone 20:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzania has 7 WHS and a further 7 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The list for Belgium is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 20:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • "with a further six on the tentative list." is incorrect there are 7 in the table.
  • Rows in the "Year listed" section can be merged if they are the same year.
  • Same with the two "several sites" in "Location (region)".
  • References should be moved to their own column in tables.
  • "United Republic of Tanzania" should be linked not just "Tanzania".
  • Should the ten criteria be listed/explained?
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks! As for merging the year listed and several sites, this is a bad idea since it would ruin the format in a sortable table - sort by another criteria and it results in a mess. Adding refs to an extra column would take valuable space, so the current style is better. And there is a link to the detailed criteria, no need to list them here separately ;) Tone 21:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, @Tone, I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would also propose adding a separate column for references, but in this particular case, with the Description cells being occupied by lengthy prose, I think the current format with the references attached to the end of the prose is the best fit. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Arconning

[edit]
  • File:Nature of Ngorongoro Conservation Area (47).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Great Mosque Kilwa Interior.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Acacia (4015643907).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Selous Game Reserve-7.jpg - CC BY 2.0, source link needs to be fixed.
  • File:Mt Kilimanjaro view from Marangu.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:House of wonders.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Kondoa mchoro mwambani 2012 Tamino.jpg - This needs a VRT, the site doesn't have the license explicitly stated, the source link needs to be fixed. If this cannot be done, either find another image or leave it blank for now.
  • File:Gombe Stream NP Mutter und Kind.jpg - GFDL 1.2
  • File:(128) - Jozani Chwaka National Park.jpg - CC BY 2.0, source link needs to be fixed.
  • File:Udzungwa Mountains-2.jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Livingstone Museum, Itetemia Ward.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Museum für Naturkunde (36556352434).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • All images are relevant to the article, have proper captioning and alt text.
    Thanks! I replaced two and removed the one with the rock art since I didn't find a suitable alternative. Tone 04:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing based on image review :) - Arconning (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Easternsahara

[edit]

Support seems to meet all necessary criteria:

  • All claims are indeed sourced.
  • All sources use DMY.
  • All sources except 23 are archived, please archive 23.
  • All sources are reliable, secondary or above, and neutral, as they are all UNESCO.
  • No duplicate sources exist.
  • Article is stable, not edited frequently and edits do not majorly change the article.
  • Tables and headings are structured correctly.
  • Professional, engaging prose and lead.
  • "There ares several vegetation types present" I think "ares" is supposed to be "are".
  • No redlinks, but if the "Eastern Arc Mountains Forests of Tanzania", The Central Slave and Ivory Trade Route " and the "Geometric rock art in Lake Victoria Region of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda* " meet notability standards then consider making them into articles

Great work as always Tone.

Easternsahara (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I fixed the typo. I tried to archive several times but the bot seems to be running a massive backlog. Will try again eventually. Tone 06:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checking whether you've addressed all concerns @Tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the last link is too fresh and the bot does not archive it yet. May try in a couple of months time. The rest is fixed, I think. As for separate articles for some of the sites, yes, eventually, but not as a part of this nomination :) Tone 07:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL

[edit]
  • "and natural sites which are important" --> "and natural sites that are important"
  • "The Tanzania" - "The" is not needed, right? Was this meant to be the National Assembly?
  • "Ngorongoro Conservation Area, in 1979, was the first site in Tanzania to be added to the list. " - slightly awkward wording.
  • "The most recent addition were the Kondoa Rock-Art Sites," -- subject-verb agreement issue. I might just rephrase it entirely.
  • "because of unplanned tourism development, uncontrolled urban development, pollution, invasive species, and reduced water flows because of droughts and hydroelectric dams upstream" -- I might switch up the second "because" to avoid repetition.
  • I think Kili should be mentioned in the lead - it's the tallest free-standing mountain on Earth.
  • "The area is home to numerous big animals" - can you state the number of species?
  • "endangered black rhinoceros" - maybe mention that it is critically endangered
  • "Serengeti is home to one of the largest mammal migration in the world" --> "migrations"

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 17:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! As for Kilimanjaro, the source does not mention the fact so I'd leave it as it is. I removed the "numerous big animals" part since I actually list some later on. Tone 08:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Taiwan

[edit]
Nominator(s): History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is similar to my other promoted lists. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike

[edit]
  • This list looks great, but I am a bit concerned about the format. Vector 2022 already narrowed the area for tables, and a list like this would theoretically get a new column every year. Depending on the reader's device, the list is either already too wide or will become too wide in few years. Is there any more sustainable way to present this information?
  • I think the lead sentence could be more concise. I suggest: "49 restaurants in Taiwan have a Michelin-star rating in the 2024 Michelin Guide." If you insist on using 'as of', there is apparently a template for that.
  • I'm seeing a lot more in the way of concision and smoother wording that can be improved:
    • "eateries they recommended to visit" is ungrammatical.
    • "to subtly sponsor their tires, by encouraging drivers to use their cars more and therefore need to replace the tires as they wore out" – this information can probably be conveyed in fewer words. The whole sentence might be a run-on.
    • " Over time, the stars that were given out became more valuable" --> "Over time, Michelin stars have become more valuable." ("that were given out" is redundant – we don't care about stars that were not given out.)
  • I suggest starting the second paragraph with a lead sentence or half-sentence to summarize it, like adding "Before a star is awarded," before "multiple".
  • Five criteria: The CNN article says one is "harmony of flavor", while the Escoffier page says the fifth is "value for money". Ideally a long quote like this would be cited straight from Michelin rather than from secondary sources of decent but not outstanding reliability – their website [3] lists "harmony of flavor", not "value for money".
  • The rest of this paragraph is a little vague.
    • It isn't explained after "create a list of popular restaurants" what is done with this list. Is it a list of candidate restaurants?
    • "If they reach a consensus" – based on the Michelin link above, I believe you mean "if the several Michelin inspectors who have eaten at the restaurant reach a consensus" (or words to that effect).
    • "based on its evaluation methodology" is redundant and can be removed
    • "The stars are not permanent and restaurants are constantly re-evaluated" – From what I understand, the stars are awarded for one specific year and re-evaluated every year.
  • The last paragraph looks good.
@Toadspike:, for your first point, the standard is to make a new table for every decade. Everything else is done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense, thank you for clarifying. The rest looks good now! Toadspike [Talk] 15:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orangesclub

[edit]
  • The Chinese text should be formatted along the lines of Template:Lang-zh, labels can be switched off so it still reads as it looks now, see MOS:OTHERLANG
  • There are a few restaurants wikilinked that just redirect back to this list, will they have their own articles soon or can they be removed?
  • A lot of MOS:ALLCAPS in the references, specifically with titles regarding Michelin
  • Also looking like most references do not have archives, would be valuable for lists like this that are largely based off single yearly references

orangesclub 🍊 22:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangesclub, done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done, happy to support  :) orangesclub 🍊 23:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • The link to Red Guide can be removed as a MOS:DUPLINK
  • I'd also explain what a Red Guide is, is this just another name for Michelin Guide? It's not clear in the current context. Perhaps "The Michelin (or Red) Guides have been published"
  • Can you fix the link to this article in {{Taiwanese cuisine}} to avoid potential WP:SELFREDIRECTS
  • Dates in citations have inconsistent date formats
  • Link Michelin Guide in Ref 1
  • Add language tags to Refs 11 and 12
  • Italicize Michelin Guide Taipei in the external link

I think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho, done all, except template as I don't know how. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the template; happy to support, nice work. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • List seems generally consistent with other Michelin-related FLs. Support as long as all concerns by other editors are addressed. Pleased to see Michelin lists being promoted, keep up the great work! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and other review from MikeVitale

[edit]

--MikeVitale 04:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, @MikeVitale. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Seoul" link in the third paragraph of the lede is still a redirect.
Additionally, the "Michelin Guide 2019 Taipei Selection" link that I mentioned above has not been fixed or edited. --MikeVitale 03:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I thought the last one was just a statement. I didn’t realize I needed to do anything. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Links 10, 11, and 12 (all in Chinese) don't have archive links yet. Please add archives. --MikeVitale 17:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MikeVitale,  Done all. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Happy to support this list. --MikeVitale 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL

[edit]
  • Is there really no suitable image? Maybe a district within Taipei that has a high density of Michelin-starred restaurants?

Regardless of whether you decide to add one, this article is very well done. I could not find any issues. Support. ~ HAL333 18:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an image discussion on talk page, History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i belive it meets FL criteria. Comments towards making the list better are accepted. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orangesclub

[edit]
  • References 1, 6 and 10 are duplicated, so are 7 and 11-done
  • References should be archived-done
  • It doesn't look like all references are filled out with all available fields-done
  • Double dagger (‡) should be mentioned in the key alongside boldface-done
  • Not sure why the photos for winners are so much smaller than those for presenters-fixed
  • WP:ALTTEXT should include an actual description of the photo, it is not interchangeable with the caption-fixed
  • Do you think the redlinks for award categories will become articles soon? If not I would probably unlink them-not done: they will turn blue soon

orangesclub 🍊 12:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed above. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, happy to support :) orangesclub 🍊 23:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • The alt texts are not helpful, please do not just repeat the captions.
  • Tables need row scopes.
  • Tables need column scopes.
  • Tables need captions.
  • All sources should have archive links.
  • A few sources are missing websites/publishers.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042, fixed above. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First source is not archived. After that is fixed, I will bold this support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042, I am done, thank you! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 13:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The lead should clarify that the awards (apparently) recognise outstanding achievement in television and film.
  • "the newly created New Era Award and Pete Edochie with Industry Merit Award" => "the newly-created New Era Award, and Pete Edochie with the Industry Merit Award"
  • "Fans of Nollywood and Ghallywood were present" - is this significant? That "fans" were there?
  • "The award was sponsored by Amstel Malta and presented by MultiChoice, where M-Net's Managing Director for Special Projects, Biola Alabi alongside NBC's Walter Drenth, presented Best Movie Award" - this sentence is very confusing. When you say "the award", do you mean the entire ceremony? Rather than one specific award? Also, the last bit should be "and M-Net's Managing Director for Special Projects, Biola Alabi, presented Best Movie Award alongside NBC's Walter Drenth"
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude, done. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still have "The award was sponsored by Amstel Malta and presented by MultiChoice". Which award was sponsored by Amstel? Do you actually mean that the ceremony was sponsored by Amstel? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude, I have corrected above per source. It is actually the event. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Beans

[edit]

I am reviewing this version.

Source review
Pass.
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited — pass
  • Consistent date formatting — pass
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting — pass
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable — pass
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for — Pass

I’ll get this done before 12-hours. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ceremony section does not tally with the lede. The lede say 2014 and the section says 2013. The ref4 sourced to the date and location of the event did not verify what’s it cited for; this information is in ref5. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans, done. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support on sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]
  • Should link Eko Hotels and Suites in the infobox as well.
  • Just "Expo Hall, Eko Hotels and Suites, Lagos, Nigeria" would be enough for the infobox.
  • Why most nominations field isn't in the infobox..?
  • Is mentioning Nollywood explicitly appropriate, because the ceremony is for all African industries.
  • Nairobi Half Life has 7 noms, but the prose says Flower Girl was the most nominated with 4 nods -- ?
  • Also, don't think its necessary for overview to be a separate header it could all be under the ceremony section.
  • Should link AMVCA for Best Actor in a Drama and Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Award for Best Overall Movie in the lead.
  • The prose says, "The awards ceremony was sponsored by Amstel Malta and the awards were presented by MultiChoice"; while the lead says "presented by MultiChoice and Africa Magic" - should be made consistent.
  • Don't think its necessary for the award categories without articles to be linked yet.
  • BellaNaija is an unreliable source, should replace with a better source.

Vestrian24Bio 11:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe Vestrian24Bio 09:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio, done. Per this consensus, BellaNaija is a reliable source. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All else good, Support. Vestrian24Bio 10:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Joe Biden

[edit]
Nominator(s): Olliefant (she/her) 19:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working a few items based around the politics of Delaware because the politics of my home state make me sad. Anyways as far as I'm aware this is the first Electoral history of X flc. I asked on the FLC talk page if this met the criteria and was met with a resounding "yeah". Olliefant (she/her) 19:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

"Kids" is not an encyclopedia term unless referring to goats; I recommend "children" instead. Additionally, the 1978 map is out of proportion to the other maps; I recommend they be of the same size and scale. Will add more later when I have more time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, image used for 78 was smaller than the one used for the others. I have changed it on commons so it should hopefully update on enwiki soon. Olliefant (she/her) 19:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It now displays the same size as the others. This is an interesting article; I look forward to examining it more closely later. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • In the first paragraph of the lead, three out of the four sentences start "Biden". Change at least one to "He" to mix it up a bit Done
  • "In 1972, at age 29 he became" => " In 1972, at age 29, he became" Done
  • "he won re-elected" - think there's a typo here Done
  • "All of Biden's senatorial and his county council campaigns " => "All of Biden's senatorial and county council campaigns " Done
  • "Following, Sanders withdrawing" => "Following Sanders withdrawing" Done
  • "Biden was [...] and breaking the record" => "Biden was [...] and broke the record" Done
  • "fourth district of the New Castle County council." - in the lead you wrote "County Councilman" with two capital Cs so I presume the same should apply here Done
  • " At the time of Biden's election the state's politics were dominated by Republicans" - link Republicans Done
  • "Though shortly after beginning his seventh term he resigned due to being elected to the Vice Presidency." - this is a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence Done
  • " Brady's campaign raised around 245 thousand, she was heavily outspent by Biden who raised around 2.8 million" - this obviously refers to dollars but you actually need to state that Done
  • "However following reports that he had plagiarized a speech by Neil Kinnock the leader of the British Labour Party, he withdrew" => "However, following reports that he had plagiarized a speech by Neil Kinnock, the leader of the British Labour Party, he withdrew". Also, as the name of the party is not "British Labour Party", I would link only the words "Labour Party", leaving "British" as an unlinked qualifier Done
  • In the 2008 primaries table, what does "scattering" mean? Is there an appropriate link?
    • Changed to Others
  • 2008 general election table should sort on the surnames of the candidates, not their forenames
  • Same for 2012
  • "Kamala Harris, became the first woman " - no need for a comma there Done
  • I feel that there is some info missing at the start of the 2024 section along the lines of "Biden announced in [whenever] that he would run again in 2024", that sort of thing Done
  • Notes a and b are not sentences so should not have full stops done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I tried to sort the table but I have no clue how and the templates page is unclear. Olliefant (she/her) 17:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the sorting? All you need to do is use a sorting template, so instead of having, for example, [[Joe Biden]] you have {{sortname|Joe|Biden}}. That will make is sort based on B rather than J.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: my bad I completely forgot about sorting templates I was trying to use the data sort value parameter. It's done now Olliefant (she/her) 21:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • All tables should sort by last name not first name. Done
  • I believe it should be written out when someone gets 0 electoral votes instead what look like missing info. An example being Jo Jorgensen in the 2020 United States presidential election. Done
  • There shouldn't be spaces before citations. An example is citation 59 in 2008 United States presidential election.
    • That's how the template is
  • All online sources should be archived. done
  • Please make all date formatting consistent in sources. Done
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042: Olliefant (she/her) 05:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, History6042😊 (Contact me) 09:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bgsu98

[edit]

OlifanofmrTennant, I owe you an apology. I said I would come back to this article to do a review (as seen above) and I never did. To make up for that, I will do the source review that usually ends up being the last thing needed. If I see anything that catches my attention, I will mention it here, but the focus will be on the sources.

  • All sources need to be archived. Several are not.
  • Publications, whether print or on-line, should have appropriate wikilinks (for example, The New York Times).
  • Sources appear to have a consistent date format.
  • This may just be a personal preference, but if I know I'm going to use a source more than once, I assign it a <ref name> rather than letting Wikipedia assign a numerical code. In fact, some of your references do have manually-entered names. For example, [1] is named "Emmrich". But then [2] is named ":2" (a Wikipedia-assigned name). I'm thinking they should be consistent, and the numbered references make it difficult (in my opinion) to edit an article in source mode.
  • I spot-checked the following sources chosen at random:
  1. No. 8 – Checks out.
  2. No. 21 – Checks out, although you need a comma after "re-elected". Done
  3. No. 35 – Checks out.
  4. No. 46 – This needs to be noted as "subscription required". Also, it verifies Dukakis' nomination, but not the result of the general election. Additionally, you need a comma after "Dukakis". Done
  5. No. 73 – Checks out.
  6. No. 85 – Checks out.
  7. No. 58 – Checks out; this verifies the results as shown on the table. Just FYI, you can insert the source after the table header rather than having it notated at the bottom. done For example:
2008 United States presidential election[3]
CandidateRunning matePartyPopular voteElectoral vote
Votes%Votes%
Barack ObamaJoe BidenDemocratic69,498,51652.9136567.84
John McCainSarah PalinRepublican59,948,32345.6417332.16
Ralph NaderMatt GonzalezIndependent739,0340.5600.00
Bob BarrWayne Allyn RootLibertarian523,7150.4000.00
Chuck BaldwinDarrell CastleConstitution199,7500.1500.00
Cynthia McKinneyRosa ClementeGreen161,7970.1200.00
Others290,6260.2200.00
Total131,361,761100.00538100.00

Observations:

  • "Brady's campaign raised around 245 thousand dollars, she was heavily outspent by Biden who raised around 2.8 million dollars." That comma should be a semicolon. Also, is "245 thousand dollars" the best way to notate that? I would go with "$245,000". Is there a Wikipedia policy on currency notations?
    • I dont belive so, but I have made the change
  • Also, you have two blue links next to each other with Attorney General of Delaware M. Jane Brady. I would reword that to say "defeating M. Jane Brady, the deputy Attorney General of Delaware. Done

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • OlifanofmrTennant, if you are going to change the one presidential table to put the source in the header (which I think is an improvement), you should do the same for the 2020 election table as well.
  • I went ahead and fixed that one reference that another user had reverted. I may be wrong, but I think wiki-nicknames for sources can't have spaces. Either way, it should be fine now. I also resized the one map of Delaware that was displaying smaller than the others. I will go through and perform another spot-check shortly and if there are any other concerns, I will list them below. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nearly done with the suggestions (just have to manually archive the sources IAbot missed) just wanted to I appricate the source review but understand that your under no obligation to review things, Wikipedia is at the end of the day a purely voluntary thing Olliefant (she/her) 15:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but if I promise to do something, I try to make sure I do it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot Check

  • Several sources still need to be archived (No. 1, No. 3, No. 7, No. 9, No. 11, No. 17, No. 21, No. 24, No. 28, No. 30, No. 34, No. 35, No. 40, No. 51, No. 55, No. 57, No. 58, No. 61, No. 63, No. No. 65, No. 76, No. 78, No. 94, No. 96, No. 97)
  • Links that require subscriptions may not be archivable, so I tried not to list those.
  • Source No. 14 should be marked as "subscription required". (Anything from the Los Angeles Times requires a subscription.)
  • Source No. 56 – CNN should be wikilinked.
  • Source No. 32 should be marked as "subscription required".
  • Source No. 62 should be marked as "subscription required".
Following up to make sure @OlifanofmrTennant has seen the feedback. If so, please ping Bgsu98 when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen the feedback and acted on most of it just haven’t had a chance to do the manual archiving yet. Olliefant (she/her) 19:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and help you out this evening if I have some time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98: done Olliefant (she/her) 00:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw one source that still needed to be archived, so I went ahead and did that for you. I also like how you've made the maps of Delaware a little smaller, but still consistent with each other. I'm happy to support this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of governors of Bayelsa State

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is now know as Bayelsa was previous Rivers, and was also previously Eastern Region. This list covers the governors that rule(d)/(s) this state of Nigeria till date. I think it passes the FL criteria, but I need feedback from my FLC regulars, comments and contributions are greatly appreciated :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Support from Toadspike

[edit]

Can't promise a full review, because I'm gonna be on on-and-off wikibreaks for a while, but the citation placement in the tables is odd. The "Notes" column is empty in both tables, so I'm not sure why it exists. Normally citations would go in that column, especially with rows that only cite one source like Alfred Diete-Spiff. OTOH, I can see the utility of having refs right after the content they cover when there are several backing up different parts of the row. I am ambivalent on this but would like to hear the nominator's thoughts, and if they decide not to use the Notes column then it should be removed. Toadspike [Talk] 18:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike Thanks for looking. This is good idea; I never thought of that. But how do I handle other entries that have several sources, each supporting their equivalent claim? Please let me know what you think, otherwise I think it’s safe to say the Notes column should go out? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike I just removed the notes column now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you wanted to, you could put refs in their own column, like at List of cabinets of Liechtenstein. This would separate them from the exact content they're citing, though, so I think the current format is better. Toadspike [Talk] 19:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike Okay, thank you for looking into this :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through my suggestions below and everything looks good now – I support this FLC on prose quality. Toadspike [Talk] 07:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
[edit]
  • The first sentence is very vague. We are talking about a list of administrators here, so I think it should be more like: "Bayelsa State, located in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, has been led by colonial, military, and civilian administrations." I am open to other wording, but it should emphasize that we are listing the administrations rather than discussing the political transformations.
    • done.
  • "British officials governed the region until Nigeria’s first military coup in 1966" – I am not super familiar with the history of Nigeria, but I was under the impression that there were a few years between independence and military rule where presumably Bayelsa was not governed by British officials.
    • fixed.
  • Footnote a, describing the region system, should be moved one sentence earlier, when the regions are first mentioned.
    • done.
  • It's not clear whether Gowon was military leader of Nigeria or just Bayelsa – it would be nice if you could find a way to specify this in the lead.
    • fixed.
  • "However, the Nigerian military government under Sani Abacha..." – "However" is not necessary. If you wish to retain a transition for smoother reading, I suggest moving the date to the start of the sentence: "In 1996, the Nigerian military government under Sani Abacha created Bayelsa State by carving it out of Rivers State."
    • done.
  • "when Diepreye Alamieyeseigha became the first democratically elected governor" – as with Gowon, it is not entirely clear what he's governing. I suggest specifying "governor of Bayelsa".
    • done.
  • A reminder that you are not required to fill out every possible field in the infobox. I think "Reports to", "Appointer", and "Constituting instrument" may not be quite correct and suggest removing them or switching to other parameters, but I am not the most informed on Nigerian politics so please clarify if I've got things wrong:
    • In most federal systems, state governors do not "report to" the head of state – they are fairly independent. For instance, I don't think the President of Nigeria can fire the Governor of Bayelsa. I think this field should be removed
      • done.
    • An "appointer" is usually a person who appoints, not the method by which the appointee is chosen. Seeing "popular vote" placed in this field is really weird. I admit that there is no better field to put "popular vote", which could be seen as an important fact. I suggest leaving it out.
      • done.
    • Is the post of governor of Bayelsa really defined in the constitution of Nigeria? Does the state not have its own constitution?
      • yes, it is defined in the constitution of Nigeria as I cited. It is defined as a governor of any Nigerian state, and not specifically Bayelsa.
Eastern Region
[edit]
  • "now constitutes Rivers State" – though technically also correct, I think this should say "Bayelsa State".
    • Fixed, this was definitely a copy-paste error, lol.
  • "while Michael Okpara served as its second premier" – the distinction between "premier" and "governor" is not spelled out. Was the premier the deputy to the governor in the First Nigerian Republic?
    • I defined both roles now.
  • It is stated in the lead and in this section that the regional system was abolished, but clearly the Eastern Region still existed and had a governor afterwards. This is confusing and should be clarified.
    • I clarified this one too now.
Rivers State
[edit]
  • After describing the division of the Eastern Region by Gowon in both the lead and this section, it needs to be explicitly stated that Bayelsa became a part of Rivers State. In the lead, "remained part of" gives the sense that the reader has missed the point where Bayelsa became part of Rivers State. In this section it's not specified at all.
  • "thus share the same party" should probably be past tense, "shared". Even if it is still true today, I assume it was not true for the subsequent periods of military rule.
    • done.
  • "...and successive military administrators until another brief civilian transition..." – I suggest putting a period somewhere in there and splitting this into two sentences.
    • done.
Bayelsa State
[edit]
  • "Upon its creation, Bayelsa State was placed under military administration" – I would argue it wasn't placed under military administration, but already was under military administration. Suggest: "At its creation, Phillip Ayeni was made the first military administrator of Bayelsa State from October 1996 to February 1997."
  • "Under the Fourth Republic" is a very abrupt switch with little context – I suggest explaining the transition to the Fourth Republic at least briefly and explicitly stating the date when it began. Perhaps add a paragraph break before this sentence.
  • It might be interesting to state why Sylva's election was nullified. It would also be interesting to state what post Seibarugo had that qualified him to serve as acting governor.
  • "...before the installation of an elected replacement. Henry Seriake Dickson, also of the PDP, was elected governor..." – These sentences are worded in a way that doesn't make it clear that Dickson was the replacement in question; it sounds as if we've started talking about someone completely different.
  • "after the annulment of the election" – This part is confusing. Normally, I'd assume that if an election is annulled, it has to be re-run, but based on the source they simply eliminated the winner and chose Diri instead. I can't find a better wording, though, that doesn't require explaining what happened and naming David Lyon. Do you have a solution?

AIFF Player of the Year Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Drat8sub (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows all necessary wikipedia guidelines and policies along with the criteria for FLC.

For reviewers, I had nominatd this article before, once not promoted because I was out of wikipedia for 2 years after nominating and could not address the reviewer's concerns, and the other time, there was not enough users available for review, was listed for urgent need of review and eventually closed without promoting. Hopefully, I will stick here this time and significant number of reviewers may help the article to get FL status. Expanded the article with addition of more awardees following all the required guidelines. Drat8sub (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code. For your tables, you can convert the first multi-column row into a caption. That should fix the issue. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @MPGuy2824:, I think now it's ok. Added the needed caption. Kindly check anything else need to be fixed. Thank you for review. Drat8sub (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @MPGuy2824:, kindly respond, check if the above mentioned concern is addressed or any other fixation needed. Drat8sub (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, drive-by comments are usually things that the person saw in passing, not when they did a full review. In this case, yes, you've fixed the problem that I pointed out above. I'm not adding my support only because I haven't done a full review. If I do that in the future, I'll add my comments and/or my support. Cheers! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility Review

[edit]


Comments

[edit]
  • "are the annual football awards presented to the best footballers in India by the All India Football Federation" - three uses of "football" seems a bit much, I think we could lose the first one
  • "Sunil Chhetri has won the award a record seven times" - I would move this to after "do so"
  • "Jo Paul Ancheri, Bhaichung Bhutia and Lallianzuala Chhangte each won the award twice" => "Jo Paul Ancheri, Bhaichung Bhutia and Lallianzuala Chhangte have each won the award twice"
  • "Chhangte is also the most recent winner in men's category" => "Chhangte is also the most recent winner in the men's category"
  • "Pyari Xaxa became the inaugural winner of the award in women's category" => "Pyari Xaxa became the inaugural winner of the award in the women's category"
  • "was mostly awarded in the end of that year" => "was mostly awarded at the end of that year"
  • "Since 2018, the award was given for a football season and being awarded in the mid of the year." => "Since 2018, the award has been given for a football season and awarded in the middle of the year." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Drat8sub for follow up. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Was no activity for two weeks...didn't check :) Thanks for the ping. Drat8sub (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all the above concern. Kindly, check if there is any more to be fixed. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Dude, I have recently make some small tweaks and changes with this edit. Do you think anything needed to be fixed ? Kindly reply. Drat8sub (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]
  • Should add "Indian" to the short description.
Added.
  • The awards page on the aiff website should be the website link for the infobox.
There is no specific section for "awards" in the website.
  • The publishers of the refernces should be properly added instead of websites.
Not necessary actually, just have to be consistent. Wherever, there is a citation of news website/newpaper used, I have added accordingly, but if you are asking about the-aiff.com then, in most of the football related articles here including GA or FA, the-afc.com is used instead of AFC as Publisher, fifa.com instead of FIFA, olympics.com for Olympics, since they are not publishing house rather websites of these federations or organisation, thus in consistent with these the-aiff.com and olympics.com are kept and used throughout the football project.
  • Should add refs directly discussing Multiple winners.
Not necessary, used in the prose above and the first table has reference for each awards.

that's all for now. Vestrian24Bio 11:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio:, kindly check above comments and let me know if anything else needed to be fixed or addressed. Drat8sub (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drat8sub:
  • According to WP:CS1, Do not append ".com" or the like if the site's actual title does not include it and If no clear title can be identified, or the title explicitly is the domain name, then use the site's domain name - in which case Capitalize for reading clarity, and omit "www.", e.g. convert "www.veterinaryresourcesuk.com" to "VeterinaryResourcesUK.com".
  • So, in this case
Vestrian24Bio 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio: Fixed per above. Drat8sub (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good then, Support. Vestrian24Bio 10:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of longhorn beetle species recorded in Britain

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cremastra talk 00:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an informative and comprehensive list, on a well-researched subject (British fauna tend to be relatively well-studied), about an interesting and very diverse clade. Cremastra talk 00:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Generalissima

[edit]
  • You can drop the first sentence of the lead paragraph - it seems like awkward way to fit in a bold title drop, which isn't necessary and bucks MOS. If you need those citations for the table, use them to cite the "There are fifty-nine native species of longhorn beetle in Great Britain, in five subfamilies." line.
    • And once you take out that sentence, i'd actually move the sentence that starts with There are fifty-nine native species of longhorn beetle to the beginning, as it introduces the topic of the article well before getting into context on the beetles.
      • Done
  • Any information on how this diversity compares to other beetle genera in Britain?
  • I don't think the name "longhorn beetle (Cerambycidae)" in the title is necessary, but it would be fine in the lede sentence. "Longhorn beetle" doesn't seem ambiguous, so I think you can safely rename it to "List of longhorn beetle species recorded in Britain" per Wikipedia:CONCISE
    • Done
  • Indented common names look a bit strange to me, especially as it often makes the names span two lines when it wouldn't otherwise. Is this a style convention for these sorts of lists? I'm not super familiar.
    • minus Removed I don't believe it is standard. I did it because I think it reads more clearly and looks nicer, but I'm happy to remove it.
  • I don't think the periods are necessary in the Distribution fields, as these are not full sentences.
    • Done
  • West-central Asia is a bit ambiguous to me - is it the western portion of Central Asia, or West Asia and Central Asia, or a region encompassing parts of both?
    • Done
  • "Throughout Europe; Turkey also" is a bit awkwardly phrased - I'd do "Europe and Asia Minor"
    • Done
  • Some species are listed as "throughout" Europe/Eurasia, while others simply say they're in Europe or Eurasia. As you'd be listing a smaller region if it wasn't throughout the region, I think you can drop that adjective.
    • Done except for the ones where "throughout" is a clear improvement
  • Is there really a meaningful difference between a distribution across Eurasia and a distribution across the Palearctic realm? I mean, unless the former is including the Indomalayan realm, in which case you should just say that; but I'm thinking that the biogeographical realms are a bit too technical, and you should just say Eurasia.
    • There is a difference, beacuse the Palearctic includes North Africa. For example, the musk beetle is "widespread from North Africa to Japan", which is the Palearctic realm precisely, but calling that a distribution across Eurasia would not be truthful. I'd have to say "Eurasia, excluding southeast Asia, and North Africa," which is a bit longer. The biogeographical realms are useful descriptors of the range because they usually align pretty well with the range – because they're biology focused and pay attention to habitat and climate, not human boundaries.
  • Mainly southern and western Europe Southern and Western should be capitalized here, as they're part of proper nouns
  • Caucasia is inconsistently linked
  • Russia's Far East - Russian Far East is a bit clearer.
    • Done
  • Link Kent
    • Done
  • You're inconsistent in linking the cardinal direction based regions of England - I'd leave out links for these, but your choice, just be consistent.
    • At first reading this comment I thought I should link all of them, but I've changed my mind. Unlinked.
  • "South east England" -> "South East England"
    • Done
  • I think the ones that start with "Rare:" or "Scarce:" can have that incorporated into the sentence more clearly, in line with the ones that say "Common" (eg, "Scarce and patchily distributed south of the Midlands", "Rare, patchily distributed across England"
    • Done
  • Some of these certainly seem like they'd be rare if they're only found in one location (like Judolia sexmaculata); are they just common within this area? Is there just no data?
      • I'm distinguishing between species which are explicitly labelled "rare" in Britain and those which merely have limited observations.
    • I'd incorporate commonality into each of the British island distribution descriptions unless there literally isn't any source that says it (to avoid ones that aren't just "Southern England" and nothing else)
  • "Mostly found in southern England" and where else?
    • Fixed
  • If you're linking Southern England, you should certainly link the Midlands
  • Images need alt-text.

That's all from me, Cremastra! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

[edit]
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Species becomes !scope=col | Species. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |''[[Anaglyptus mysticus]]''... becomes !scope=row | ''[[Anaglyptus mysticus]]''.... If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.

--MikeVitale 20:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeVitale All done. Cremastra talk 21:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. Support. --MikeVitale 00:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Further comment
[edit]

Even more comments

[edit]
  • "are among the most diverse and important beetle families. Around 35,000 species are known.[5] A few species are known from accidental introductions,[6] and a handful are now believed to be extirpated from the island." - this is slightly confusing because (presumably) the first part refers to worldwide coverage but the second part (presumably) refers only to GB but doesn't explicitly say so.....
  • "Rare species found in only in the Scottish Highlands" - there's a spare "in" in there
  • "also found southern England" - conversely there's an "in" missing there -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Following up to make sure @Cremastra has seen these comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've finished making these changes. Cremastra talk 20:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense

[edit]
  • remove www from website parameters in the citations
  • Around 35,000 species are known.[5] A few species known from accidental introductions,[6] and a handful are now believed to be extirpated from the island. hmm I think this could use some work prose wise, maybe something like Around 35,000 species are known; a few species known from accidental introductions, and a handful are now believed to be extirpated from the island. additionally, I'm not sure what you mean by accidental introductions, maybe a change of wording would help clarify?
  • excepting some remote did you mean "except in"?
  • There are fifty-nine native species of longhorn beetle in Great Britain, in five subfamilies. may sound better as "classified into five subfamiliaes", also does this need a source?
  • Your capitalization of terms such as "south-west" and other geographical titles is inconsistent.

That's all for now. Ping when done. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cremastra to check whether all feedback has bene addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this section, yes. I'm still working on the alt-text. Cremastra talk 19:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checking with @IntentionallyDense to see if all the concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra Have you had time to add alt text? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 14:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost done. Sorry, I've been busy in real life lately and haven't had time for many long editing sessions. Cremastra (u — c) 22:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reconrabbit

[edit]
Image review
  • As Generalissima stated above, images need alt text.
  • File:Clytus arietis (Linnaeus, 1758).png, File:Plagionotus arcuatus MDj3.jpg, File:Acanthocinus aedilis-s.jpg, File:Pogonocherus fasciculatus up.jpg, File:Pogonocherus hispidulus (Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783).png, File:Saperda carcharias 01 (MK).jpg, File:Tetrops starkii Chevrolat, 1859.png, File:Grammoptera abdominalis (Stephens, 1831).png, File:Tetropium castaneum (Linnaeus, 1758).png - CC-BY-SA 4.0.
  • File:Poecilium alni above.jpg, File:Saperda scalaris up.jpg, File:Pseudovadonia livida up.JPG, File:Agapanthia cardui side.JPG - GNU 1.2 and other CC options.
  • File:Pyrrhidium-sanguineum-12-fws.jpg, File:Agapanthia-villosoviridescens-09-fws.jpg, File:Alosterna-tabacicolor-17-fws.jpg, File:Dinoptera-collaris-13-fws.jpg, File:Leptura-quadrifasciata-06-fws.jpg, File:Phymatodes-testaceus-05-fws.jpg, File:Rhagium-bifasciatum-05-fws.jpg, File:Rhagium-inquisitor-04-fws.jpg, File:Rhagium-mordax-10-fws.jpg, File:Rutpela-maculata-08-fws.jpg, File:Stenocorus-meridianus-01-fws.jpg, File:Stenurella-nigra-06-fws.jpg, File:Prionus-coriarius-08-fws.jpg - CC0 as published by Francisco Welter-Schultes (User:Kryp).
  • File:Burnt-tip grammoptera, Fairview Lane, Tunbridge Wells imported from iNaturalist photo 39401234.jpg, File:Rust Pine Borer, 93437 Furth im Wald, Deutschland imported from iNaturalist photo 300747615.jpg - iNaturalist imports, CC-BY 4.0.
  • All other images have been imported from Flickr, are sourced, and are CC-BY-SA or CC-BY 2.0.
    Alt-text missing is the only problem I find here. -- Reconrabbit 17:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Following up with @Cremastra to see if all aspects have been addressed. Please ping Reconrabbit when you reply if so. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria. It is the first award ceremony of the AMVCA. Thank you. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • First image needs alt text.
  • Why is there a " | |" in Best Picture Director.
  • Same for the "|" in Best Sound Editor and Best Writer (comedy).
  • What proof do you have that BellaNaija is a reliable source.
  • Why is Olu Jacobs the only person in the Industry Merit Award section, were there no runners-up.
  • "to all entrants.The award is" is missing a space.
  • "The award is presented", is should be was
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042, thank you. I am done fixing the article per your comments above. For the reliability of BellaNaija, see WP:RSNG and this recent discussion and consensus. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @History6042 for follow up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

[edit]

Several things should be fixed, but these two are the most critical as they are necessary for proper accessibility:

  • Categories and nominees should be in the same cell. Otherwise, a screen reader will read the table incorrectly as it moves from top to bottom, left to right; for instance, it would read "Best Actress in a Comedy" between "Best Actress in a Drama" and the Best Actress in a Drama nominees. {{Award category}} is great for this; you can also refer to other awards ceremonies such as 76th Primetime Emmy Awards and 96th Academy Awards for examples.
  • Listing winners in boldface is insufficient; you should also have a symbol to denote the winner. The two examples above show this. (Also, nominees are typically listed with an extra indent to further separate winners.)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123, done. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • Hosts should be listed on separate lines in infobox
  • Use spaces around the slash for most awards entry in infobox (MOS:SLASH)
  • "9 March 2013, at the Exhibition Center" – no comma needed after year (MOS:DATEFORMAT)
    • Also occurs in Ceremony section
  • "Vimbai Mutinhiri and IK Osakioduwa Kimmel hosted" – looks like "Kimmel" was copied from another article on accident?
  • "the Best Picture" / "the Best Actor in a Drama" / "the Best Actor and Actress" – just say "Best ___", like it says for Best Actress in a Drama
    • Similar wording occurs in Ceremony section
  • "The award also honoured" – replace "award" with "ceremony" or a similar word
  • It says "28 honours in 26 categories" but then says "and also two honours", so presumably the 28 honours part is redundant – just say it has 26 categories and two honours
  • "Big Brother Africa's" – use {{'s}} like this: ''Big Brother Africa''{{'s}}
  • "9pm CAT" – either link to the meaning of CAT or spell it out
  • There's no formal rules for this, but I suggest reorganizing the categories to follow a more typical order in the list. Place the main category first (Best Picture) and pair similar awards besides each other (Best Actor in a Drama / Best Actress in a Drama; Best Writer (Comedy) / Best Writer (Drama); etc.)
    • Though as I look over the categories, I don't think they're all correct? There are two Best Film entries, and they don't match; meanwhile, neither is called Best Picture, which is what the prose used. There are also only 24 categories listed even though it says there were 26 categories, and the Trailblazer Award is missing.
  • Place spaces around the en dashes in the winners and nominees table (MOS:LISTDASH)
  • Convert the Industry Merit Award to use {{Award category}} like every other entry

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123, done. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still only count 24 categories (discounting the honorary awards) instead of 26. From the sources it looks like all of the nominees are listed; can you try to figure out why the category count went from 26 to 24? If there aren't sources explaining the change, there should still be some clarification that the totals do not match. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The award didn't name nominees for two categories: Best Documentary and Best Online Video; according to the organisers, the selection team preferred to present it as certificates of encouragement to all entrants. @RunningTiger123 Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – all comments addressed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense

[edit]
Source review

I will do the source review for this article starting with formatting then checking reliability and then doing a source spot check. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formatting is consistent across citations
  • Sources are appropriately reliable, there seems to have been a week consensus that BellaNaija is reliable and seeing as it used alongside other sources and that it isn't supporting any controversial information I think it is appropriate here
  • ref 1 is verified
  • ref 2 isn't loading for me. This may be a regional issue but I'll check again later
  • I spot checked the other sources and found no issues.

If you could get back to about ref 2 and ping me in your reply that would be great! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense, I have fixed above including ref2. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for the source review. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Beans

[edit]

My comments are in this version.

That’s all I seem to have from my end for now. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reading Beans , done. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 23:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]
  • Should link Eko Hotels and Suites in the infobox as well.
  • Is it necessary to include three refs for the hosts; only one is enough.
  • Link Otelo Burning on the first mention in the overview section; same for other titles as well.
  • Also, don't think its necessary for overview to be a separate header it could all be under the ceremony section.
  • Should link AMVCA for Best Actor in a Drama and Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Award for Best Overall Movie wherever necessary (lead and overview section).
  • Who were awarded for Best Documentary and Best Online Video??
  • The prose says, "The awards ceremony was sponsored by Amstel Malta and the awards were presented by MultiChoice"; while the lead says "presented by MultiChoice and Africa Magic" - should be made consistent.
  • Don't think its necessary for the award categories without articles to be linked yet.
  • Best Lighting Designer, Best Art Director, Best Picture Director and Best Cinematographer winners are missing the ‡ symbol.
  • BellaNaija is an unreliable source, should replace with a better source.

Vestrian24Bio 11:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio, done. Per this consensus, BellaNaija is a reliable source. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All else good, Support. Vestrian24Bio 10:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders seasons

[edit]
Nominator(s): TBJ10RH (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for the featured list because the page itself looks well-structured, and detailed, and has an informative record of the RailRiders' seasons-by-season history. The list is easy to read, consistently formatted, and provides a comprehensive look at the team’s performance over the years. It highlights key stats, postseason results, and affiliations, making it an excellent resource for both casual fans and baseball historians. The list’s thorough research, consistent formatting, and clear presentation enhance its value, making it a strong candidate for featured status. It can make an argument to be part of the 4,604 other featured lists.TBJ10RH (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to give feedback for further assistance is appreciated as well. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]
  • The Abbr template on "2,658–2,331" seems unneeded
  • The "(.533)" should be in prose otherwise its purpose seems confusing
  • A few MOS:DASH violations
  • The refs in the results column should be in the ref column, rename the column to "Ref(s)" per the change
  • Footnote A should list "Louisville RiverBats" and not just "Louisville"
  • Why is "Stats Crew" a reliable source?
Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Olif, I appreciate your assistance on helping, making this list in better quality. In regards to your last comment, Stats Crew has been criminally underrated in finding a lot of important baseball statistics that not a lot of major "trusting" websites do on their pages which sometimes removes the aspects of finding great information for lists like these. If you have any ideas on how I can find an alternative site that informs readers about statistics related to the StatCrew page, let me know! I do believe Baseball Reference has this feature so I will double check in case.
Thanks again!
Dan TBJ10RH (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any specific reason as to why "Stats Crew" is a reliable source? What's their fact checking and editorial policies? Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 09:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response:
Like Baseball reference, StatsCrew does a lot of source-digging in order to present their information on their website. It appears that the statistics that they have are similar to Baseball-reference, another trustworthy website for baseball statistics. That's why I call them reliable. TBJ10RH (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant
I actually decided to remove StatCrew-related content as I was informed those statistics are open-sourced to the public it could make inaccurate. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 02:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

NatureBoyMD

[edit]
  • Lede image: I’d include the team’s full name ("Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders") and link to the team’s article.
  • "the franchise has served under two main affiliates:" strike "main" – there aren’t any "minor" affiliates
  • I’d expand the lede to include an overview with a brief history of the team’s former Red Barons and Yankees monikers.
  • "The team has claimed two league titles (2008 and 2016)." "claimed" > "won"; "league titles" > "International League championships"
  • "Additionally, the RailRiders secured one class title" "class title" > "Triple-A championship"
  • 4th paragraph: unlink "IL championship" if liked above as mentioned
  • "However, under Dave Miley" > add "manager" before his name
  • championship celebration image: On my display, the image causes the table to sandwich, resulting in a lot of text wrapping. I'd either remove the image, or shorten the caption.
  • I know a lot of people favor using row span (for league and affiliate here), and there may be a policy in favor of such, but I have to scroll down to the row for 2008 before I can see what league they played in. I'd go back to repeating "IL" and their affiliates for each season.
  • 2020: Even though the season was cancelled, they were still affiliates of the Yankees, and members of the IL.
  • Notes C and D are wordy and repetitive. Maybe shorten it to a single note that appears on 2021's league?
  • You have notes "A-D" and "n 1". They should be the same format.
  • References should use consistent formatting. 2, 3, and 56, for example, are different from most of those in the table.
  • There is an "External links" heading but no external links. Remove it and just have the team navbox under the references.
  • NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do the rest when I get home from school but here is what I've done so far from what you've said:
    Point 2 - Striked out "main."
    Point 4 - Added "manager" before Dave Miley's name
    Point 5 - Shortened the caption to "RailRiders celebrating their the 2016 Triple-A Championship."
    Point 7 - Added "won" and striked out "claimed."
    Point 14 - Externals Links Tab has been removed.
    I will do Point 1, 3, 6, and 8-13 when I get home. TBJ10RH (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    instead of A-D, I did all of them as "N#" if that's alright.
    Other than that, everything seems alright. If you have more advice, please let me know and I will look into it. TBJ10RH (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, I am going to go out and celebrate Nowruz, happy early new years everyone reading this! TBJ10RH (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have returned and am available until 3:20 pm ET today. Any comments directed to be earlier than that and I shall complete the task. TBJ10RH (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the above:
  • The short description should be "None" per WP:SDEXAMPLES
  • The team names do not need to be in bold.
  • I'd find a way to merge the first two paragraphs, so the affiliation info isn't so repetitive
  • "under two affiliates" > "under two Major League Baseball (MLB) affiliates"
  • The championship celebration image caption needs some grammatical work. It is also still sandwiching the table.
  • Some references are using sentence case, while others use title case.
  • NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have fixed some references regarding that. I made them all "title cases" as opposed to "sentences cases."
Hope that is alright with you. I will wait until further suggestions/instructions. TBJ10RH (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rewrite the first paragraph as such: The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders are a Minor League Baseball team that plays in the Scranton–Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area of Pennsylvania. Founded as members of the Triple-A classification International League (IL) in 1989, the team was known as the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Barons during their Major League Baseball (MLB) affiliation with the Philadelphia Phillies from 1989 to 2006. They became known as the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees in 2007 after affiliating with the New York Yankees. The team rebranded as the RailRiders in 2013 while maintaining their affiliation with New York. In conjunction with the 2021 restructuring of the minor leagues, the RailRiders were placed in the new Triple-A East (AAAE) in 2021,[4] but this league was renamed the International League in 2022.[5]
  • I think you can drop the sentence about PNC Park, since the stadium isn't mentioned at all later, but move the reference to the lede image.
  • You can lose the references for the RailRiders' rebrand, as the name change is supported by references in the table.
  • Changes to the first para as above should mean you don't need notes 3 and 5, which are overly-detailed just to say they played in leagues with different names.
  • If you wanted to create a table comparing totals for each MLB affiliate (like Nashville's) and mention the differences in paragraph two, it would be beneficial.
  • I'd tweak paragraph three as such for better flow and linking/introducing terms earlier on: Scranton/Wilkes-Barre has won thirteen division championships, including five consecutive titles from 2006 to 2010, along with three wild card playoff berths. They went on to win two International League championships (2008 and 2016) and one Triple-A championship (2016). The RailRiders experienced a difficult start. In their first ten seasons, they made only one postseason appearance—in 1992, which was their only winning season during that period. However, under manager Dave Miley (2007–2015), the RailRiders had a more successful stretch, making nine consecutive postseason appearances and winning seven division titles. Miley also led the team to two IL championship series, winning in 2008 and finishing as the runner-up in 2009.[6]
  • Celebration image caption: "The RailRiders celebrating their 2016 Triple-A championship win" (with no period) ... Even at one line of text, it still sandwiches for me, but two lines will display OK on the default Wikipedia skin.
  • I think that's all I've got. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Point #1: Done
    Point #2: Done (I think)
    Point #3: Done
    Point #4: Done
    Point #5:Working on it
    Point #6: Working on it
    Point #7: There was already a period TBJ10RH (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the affiliation thing a lot. I do have a question: What is a composite in this context? TBJ10RH (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, I realized it is the sum of Post+Reg record. TBJ10RH (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also realized you meant that I remove the period in the text TBJ10RH (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good Evening/Morning Nature. I am done a "affiliation-list" TBJ10RH (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I finish working on what you suggested. TBJ10RH (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally:
  • There are two paragraphs in a row beginning with "The team..." in the lede
  • Paragraph three is hard to follow with championships listed out of magnitude (league > class > division > wildcard).
  • "five consecutive championships" - I know you mean division titles, but a casual reader may not.
  • "the RailRiders had a dominant stretch" - I don't think "dominant" adheres to a neutral point-of-view. I would call it a "more successful stretch." They only reached the postseason 6 of 9 years and played for 2 IL championships, winning one... they didn't exactly "dominate" their opponents.
  • NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point #1: Fixed.
Point #2: Fixed
Point #3: Fixed
Point #4: Fixed. Instead of "dominant," I can reword it as "successful stretch"
Thank you so much for you advice Nature TBJ10RH (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! TBJ10RH (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Emmrich, Stuart (November 11, 2020). "Meet the Joe Biden Whisperer, His Sister Valerie Owens". Vogue. Archived from the original on November 30, 2020. Retrieved March 18, 2025.
  2. ^ Golin, William B. "How Joe Biden changed Delaware's — and America's — politics". The News Journal. Archived from the original on March 29, 2025. Retrieved March 13, 2025.
  3. ^ "Federal Elections 2012" (PDF). Federal Election Commission. Washington, D.C. 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 2, 2019. Retrieved January 20, 2021.
  4. ^ Mayo, Jonathan (February 12, 2021). "MLB Announces New Minors Teams, Leagues". Major League Baseball. Archived from the original on March 6, 2021. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
  5. ^ "Historical League Names to Return in 2022". Minor League Baseball. March 16, 2022. Archived from the original on March 25, 2022. Retrieved March 16, 2022.
  6. ^ "Dave Miley MiLB Coaching Record". Stats Crew. Retrieved January 10, 2025."Dave Miley MiLB Managerial Record". Baseball-Reference. Sports Reference. Retrieved March 16, 2025.

TBJ10RH

[edit]
Available everyday from 12:50-3:20 pm ET
^ If anyone has any instructions/suggestions to further improve the list, feel free to comment whenever you feel like it (Just wanting to improve it well before nominations in a month). TBJ10RH (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Stats Crew does not seem to be a reliable source. I think a discussion at WT:Baseball may be warranted, but the rather disclosure on the credits page about data inaccuracy is concerning. Consider replacing the playoff sources with newspaper reports.
  • Second paragraph of the prose needs some citations, even if it is summarizing the data.
  • Franchise totals section is completely unsourced.
  • The first note does not have any sources. SounderBruce 03:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. If this helps, I have removed the Stats Crew sources with Baseball Reference. In regards to a suggestion on newspaper report, the best sources of newspaper having these games are usually gatekept as a subscription, which makes it impossible to find them online.
    Both the The Scranton Times-Tribune and Times Leader are on Newspapers.com, which can be accessed through WP:TWL. If you do not meet the requirements for TWL access, then the resource exchange system can help you with clippings. It seems like the media guide does cover this information this time, but keep this in mind for future nominations.
    2. Second Bulletin Point request has been fulfilled.
    The new citation needs to include page numbers and a proper publisher rather than leaving a bare URL in the website field.
    3. I have sourced them all via ref names of Baseball Reference
    Looks good, but again the new citation needs to be fully formatted.
    4. Sourced. TBJ10RH (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The page information is missing from the Times Leader citation.
  • Another issue: there's no links in the citations. Either the first or all uses of the publisher and work/newspaper should be linked to their respective articles. SounderBruce 04:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball-Reference informs the season about the 1992 IL season, including all the playoff information for SWB/COL. May I ask which missing citations you are referring to SounderBruce?
    Best Regards,
    Dan TBJ10RH (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SounderBruce May I ask which links are missing in the citations? Any Ref# would be appreciated. TBJ10RH (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3 Introduction paragraphs seem to look fine as of right now. Obviously, I am not saying that it is the correct version but if you have any advice, do let me know @SounderBruce.
    Happy Wednesday. Best Regards, TBJ10RH (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, please don't ping reviewers twice if there's only been a day since your response. FLC isn't meant to be a source of instant gratification; some people take time to respond and generally a week is when you should start pinging to remind reviewers to check in.
    Citations 11, 19, 23, 31, and 47 need links to their respective publishers and publications. Citation 50 still uses a URL for its work parameter. There are inconsistencies in linking on first-use versus all uses, particularly MiLB and MLB, so iron those out as well. SounderBruce 22:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, I would like to apologize for my misusage of pinging people as I should've known better. I will make sure to consider this going forward. Secondly, I have listened to your suggestion by fixing the cites of #11, #19, #23, #47 & #50. #31 was an archived pdf hence making it harder to change the file. However, I replaced the dead link with the official box score of the game to make it look better.
    Thank you again for your help and I apologize for the amount of pings I've used TBJ10RH (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SounderBruce Been ~a week, just wanted to check on how your review has been on the article. Let me know what you think sir
    Best Regards, TBJ10RH (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The inconsistent linking has still not been addressed. Times Leader, The Charlotte Observer, The Citizens' Voice, and WNEP-TV should all be linked on their first use. SounderBruce 04:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked over, took your advice, and have made sure it met your suggestions. Let me know if you have any more questions. TBJ10RH (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @SounderBruce for followup. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still see several citations that don't have links (47) and those that do and are duplicating (5 and 6). Citation 31 should not be repeating the use of Minor League Baseball across two parameters. Citations 2, 3, 31, 49, and 50 should all use the publisher parameter, as they are league publications rather than news articles. I feel that we are stuck in a fix loop that should be resolved at the end of this, but I ask that you make sure that every comment is addressed or acted upon before claiming things have been done. SounderBruce 01:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up question: Should I go over any other league publications that may have incorrect citating functions and apply the "|publisher=Insert_Link|" format? TBJ10RH (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article must use a consistent citation format; whether that is linking all publishers/publications or only on the first use. As of writing, the list is still inconsistent and needs to be resolved; this is a basic part of preparing for a nomination. SounderBruce 07:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this include the international league seasons as well? TBJ10RH (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am asking since the format I am using consistently is the publisher link format (e.g. |publisher=Major League Baseball) TBJ10RH (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Last question: What part of the list is inconsistent? TBJ10RH (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SounderBruce May I have a follow-up on the questions I've asked from last week please? TBJ10RH (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, this is stuck in a fix loop. Please look at the citations formatting in other FLs and compare them to your list; the switch to "publisher" for newspapers was incorrect. Minor League Baseball is still overlinked. One citation has a MOS:' error ("Red Barons’"). SounderBruce 06:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the straight apostrophe via MOS. I checked a featured list (List of Nashville Sounds seasons) and it appears that they use "|work=" mostly for newspaper archived and "|website=" for available ones online. I followed their criteria into current page. TBJ10RH (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest change just undid most of the progress made in having a consistent set of links in citations. The first use of a given publisher, newspaper, or website should always be linked if there is something to link to. Removing all of the publisher and work links is not consistent with any of the feedback given so far. I also don't think this list benefits from having a separate "general references" section, which duplicates several existing citations. As such, I cannot pass this source review and don't think I will return to this nomination in its current state. SounderBruce 04:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay TBJ10RH (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TBJ10RH: You should still do something about the linking and reference formatting. Personally I choose to link the website, publisher, newspaper, etc. every time instead of at first instance, both options are acceptable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand Josh. I am going through each link this upcoming weekend. Hopefully, once I do my very best that perhaps Sounder would reconsider but imma go earn it TBJ10RH (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • All sources should be archived.
  • Baseball-reference seems to be over-relied on, are there any other usable sources.
  • In visual edit mode, there are two reflists, one should be removed, I don't mean the genneral section, the first one has a duplicate.
  • A use American English template should be added to the top
  • When rows are the same they should be merged.
  • Seasons should be linked in the table.
  • An awards section should be added to the table if the MiLB has awards.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, will let you know by next month.
    Best regards, TBJ10RH (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @History6042:
    • I don't see an issue with the usage of Baseball-reference in this case
    • Awards are not mandatory for inclusion, but it's a fine suggestion
    • Archiving is fine, but not an outright requirement
    • When rows are the same they should be merged is not necessarily true. There's times when it's appropriate and times when it's not
    Just a few notes for future reviews. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh The awards are currently in the SWB RailRiders page but is soon going to be in a different redirect page once I finish the team's awards page as part of a mini-wikiproject. Rest assured. TBJ10RH (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

List of songs by Gen Hoshino

[edit]
Nominator(s): IanTEB (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second time at the FL procedure after Gen Hoshino discography last year. That went well so I am now nominating this list of songs by the same artist. This includes songs from his solo catalogue (but not tracks with his instrumental band Sakerock), and also guest appearances and writing credits. These guest writing credits are marked with blue in the table. For reference, this list was primarily modeled after List of songs by Taylor Swift and other FLs about songs.

As with last time, I would like to explain my use rationale for some of the Japanese-language sources since I believe they will be new to many reviewers. Most of these (Oricon, Cinra, Real Sound, Rockin'On Japan, and others) are used in several of my GAs and have not posed a problem. I believe songwriting information could be verified on digital music platforms like Apple Music, but I've cited the CD releases for convenience. Releases since 2018 are sourced to Hoshino's website, which has since then included specific credits. Any comment is appreciated! IanTEB (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

12th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheUzbek (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I am trying to establish a WP:Featured content for the 12th National Congress of the CPV. My previous nomination in this content category were/are 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. TheUzbek (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Arconning

[edit]
  • Done Image in infobox needs alt-text.
  • Done "Nguyễn Phú Trọng was elected \general", slash should be removed.
  • Done "is a central leading organ", "is the central leading organ"
    • its a central leading organ; there are other central leading organs as well.
  • Done "handling the day-to-day work", omit "the".
  • Done "responsible for the day-to-day work", "responsible for its day-to-day work"
  • Done "as permanent member", "as a permanent member"
    • wrote "the" instead since its a specific office with only one officeholder
  • Done Why is "Female" the only one highlighted?
    Thank you, I have replied to you're comments! TheUzbek (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Arconning (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Done "responsible for executing the decisions of the politburo and the Central Committee are executed" - this doesn't make grammatical sense
  • "supervising, and leading the work of the Central Committee apparatus" - supervising what? If it's the work of the Central Committee apparatus then you don't need to say both "supervising" and "leading" as they mean the same thing
  • Done "remained in office for the duration of his term" - this is stating the obvious. Maybe you mean "remained in office for the duration of the five-term term of the secretariat".....?
    • Reworded to "It is tasked with handling day-to-day work as well as leading and supervising the work of the Central Committee apparatus, that is, the administrative agencies of the CPV Central Committee"
  • Done That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded to "was elected general secretary on 27 January 2016 and remained in office for the duration of the Central Committee's term"
    Done, and thank you very much for reviewing this list! TheUzbek (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Oppose per FL criterion 3c): "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", in this case 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Very little in the lead is not already covered in the 12th Central Committee article, and the table can easily be incorporated in another section below that article's prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to have separate articles for the Secretariat: Secretariat of the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 8th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Cuba, 20th Secretariat of the Chinese Communist Party el. cetra. The reason is that it is one of the most important institutions of the party in question and is a distinct agency. If you want me to expand the text, I can do that without any problems whatsoever.
I feel this "oppose" is based on little factual understanding of the system in place. Do you have any specific comments that I can fix? I can write a 10-page analysis of the 12th Secretariat that is based on reliable sources if that is what you want. TheUzbek (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done as you pleased, and added more information in the lead. I will admit that I hastily put this text together, so it was good of you to point it out. Is there any more information that you feel is needed/lacking? TheUzbek (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT. Yes, if it is possible to write a ten-page analysis of the 12th Secretariat based on reliable sources, then this list is not comprehensive, which is an FL criterion. I maintain my oppose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a list; not an article............ TheUzbek (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either this is a simple list of the members of the 12th Secretariat, in which case it can simply be merged with 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam per FL criterion 3c), or it is an incomplete article on the 12th Secretariat which can stand alone but which is not currently comprehensive. Your choice, but either way, not ready for promotion to featured status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I did not take you're opposition at all seriously, but now I do.
Firstly, yes, you can write an analysis of 12th Secretariat - and 10 pages of it - but that would be an analysis, and WP does not do analysis, it informs readers on the subject neutrally. We must remember that Vietnam is a communist state with a non-transparent form of information spreading about its government. An article on the 12th Secretariat could be written, but I don't think it would be interesting for our readers. It would mostly be "That Secretariat member did this, said that, met there, etc" Not a very interesting article in itself.
As for you WP:OTHERCONTENT point, that is plain nonsense. First, we, as Wikipedia editors, need to think of our readers. The Secretariat is one of the most important institutions governing Vietnam. Could the article on the 12th Central Committee accurately focus on its importance while being overtly focused on the plenary sessions of the CPV Central Committee? I don't think so, and that article is already borderline long. The best way to inform our readers about the 12th Secretariat would be to have a separate article that is solely focused on it. If you feel more information is lacking, I can add it, but I wanted to make a clean and concise list, and this is what I have done.
As for the wider point, dismissing the need for this article is problematic on many grounds: 1) reliable sources, 2) the scholarly acknowledgement of the unique status of this institution, 3) that it is independent of other articles, 4) its independent status as a list is the best way to inform readers on the topic and 5) a list gives readers a proper overview of who was elected, reelected, not elected and important statistical information on each member. Now, you can, of course, continue to insist on your point, but in reality, you lack a killer argument here. You brought up a valid point, and that was also brought up with the Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, but that passed. This list should also pass. TheUzbek (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add - since you clearly don't know enough about this topic - that it is not very easy to merge this article with the 12th Central Committee. The Central Committee is empowered to elect the members of the Secretariat, but the Politburo is empowered to assign their work. Therefore, it cannot be merged with the 12th CC; the 12th CC is only empowered to elect it. The article on the 12th CC is about the political layer (which is normal), but the 12th Secretariat leads the administrative layer beneath, which is not covered in that article. The administrative layer is not elected, and people there are "ordinary employees", not politicians. Since you don't accurately grasp Vietnamese politics, you're counter-proposal does not make very much sense either. TheUzbek (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your expert-level introduction to Vietnamese politics. One of the great things about Wikipedia is the ability to interact with people who understand subjects a whole lot better than yourself. You have succintly explained the importance of the Secretariat, its distinct nature from the Central Committee, and its separate focus. You have convinced me that this page would be better suited as a separate article.
That said, your explanation has also left me convinced that this page would work better as a prose-focused article. To start with, the lead is now 805 words on its own—over twice as long as the leads of most featured articles, and increasingly overshadowing the short "Members" section, which is the basis of this nomination as a list. I would suggest introducing a section header titled "Operations" (or whatever word is usual in sources) and include the details of appointments/assignments/elections therein. Then, you can add details on what they actually got up to, and on that note:
I must disagree with you about prioritising "interest for our readers"—as Wikipedia editors, we must summarise what reliable sources say without caring about our personal opinions/interest. There is a reason that our notability guidelines do not mention "interesting"—otherwise anyone who finds the entirety of the topic of the 12th Central Committee uninteresting would be able to delete all the lists and articles.
So to summarise: thanks for the explanation, but I do think at present the page must be considered more an article than a list, and should be nominated at FAC, not FLC; if it were expanded and reorganised, it would actually have a good chance of passing there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I have seldom experienced this on Wikipedia! A user that reads and changes his opinion. My respect for you increased markedly! And you're also calling me an "expert", which my ego, of course, likes to hear very much! :) To show my respect, I will propose a counter-proposal that would make both of us happy, I think :)
Reason for rejection: "must summarise what reliable sources", yes, I agree. What I am trying to say is this. Information on what these politicians do and think is non-transparent. Very little information on what the Secretariat actually does is published. That is, the public is not informed of the Secretariat's meetings, but what each Secretariat member is up to is stated. Instead of creating a separate article on the 12th Secretariat, I would rather propose that information be added to the respective biographies of the members of the 12th Secretariat. That is the best way not to duplicate that information because information on Vietnamese politicians is sparse. I mean, believe me, I would love to write an article on the 12th Secretariat if that was possible (I mean, I have come into contact with users that argued that the text on the 12th Central Committee was wasteful and the article deleted), so I am a user who believes that we should create and article if we can. But, I don't think we can this time, I really don't. In contrast, I am looking into the possibility of creating an article for the 12th Central Inspection Commission of the Communist Party of Vietnam and creating a separate list for it. There is at least a lot of information available about it convening and working collectively.
My counter-proposal: I've been thinking of creating an article titled Apparatus of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, but concluded that it was unwise. The 12th Central Committee did not have a distinct apparatus; it would constitute WP:Original research to have that title. I can merge information I would include in that list into this one since it would mostly replicate it. Therefore, I propose keeping the members, not expanding the list, and adding a separate list of the supervised administrative working organs and which one of them was represented on the 12th Secretariat. Before you respond positively or negatively, let me at least make the changes to the list first before you make a final decision on the matter. TheUzbek (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented my counter-proposal; better? TheUzbek (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never got a response here! TheUzbek (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Pinging in case you missed this. Toadspike [Talk] 20:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from Toadspike

[edit]

I am unlikely to provide a full review, but I seriously question whether the information currently listed for members is relevant. Why do we need to least each member's gender? Is their birthplace really relevant, or would it be better to say where they are "from"/where they live? And the education column really feels like trivia. Even profession/occupation would be slightly more interesting and varied. Toadspike [Talk] 20:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The color coding, especially red to denote incumbent members, seems odd. It implies being a reelected incumbent is somehow a bad thing. Toadspike [Talk] 20:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Age is extremely important in communist politics, as the communists actively institute age balance in key leadership positions as a form of succession planning.
  2. Party membership is also important, since it's commonly a denominator of their power, whether they are technocrats or not.
  3. Birtplace is extremely important since communist politics is based on provincial balancing (sectional interests).
  4. Educational attainment is also important, highlighted both in primary and tertiary sources. Profession/occupation would not make sense since they are all party and/or state cadres...
  5. Not necessarily bad, but the best, from the communist perspective, is institutionalised renewal. That is, because communist Eastern Europe developed into a gerontocracy. That red is a bad colour, I would deem subjective.
  6. Gender is also important, highlighted both in primary sources and by outside observers interested in studying female representation in communist party-state organs. Why would gender not be important?
  7. We can, of course, discuss the colour code
TheUzbek (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and other comments

[edit]
  • The layout of sources confuses me. You use SFNs and have a dedicated "News sources" for the proper citations yet also a biblography?
  • Add a {{Use DMY dates}}
  • "Quân ủy Trung ương nhiệm kỳ 2020–2025 tổ chức Hội nghị lần thứ nhất" has a MOS:DASH violation in the years (same with the translated title)
  • The captions on the two tables should be {{sronly}} as they duplicate the section headings
  • I believe the {{abbr}} is being misused, could these be {{EFN}}s instead?
  • The lead is really long, could "History" and "Background" headings be established?
What I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fixed
  2. Fixed
  3. Fixed (I think)
  4. I have no clue what "sronly" is, and I did not grasp it by reading that page either.
  5. It was approved at 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam (both are FLs); it takes less space and is efficient.
  6. Fixed
TheUzbek (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Screen readers are used by people who have difficulty seeing, the {sronly} template does not show it to sighted users, because it no longer appears on the page. However, readers using screen readers can still hear it because the screen reader will read it. Easternsahara (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added screenreaders :) TheUzbek (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercially available insulins

[edit]
Nominator(s): MallardTV (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... MallardTV (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC) This list has been my passion for a very long time. I know this article has only been made over the past few days, but behind the scenes it's a culmination of months of research and years of curiosity. Being a diabetic myself, I've searched for an index of insulin brands to no avail. Since Wikipedia is my hobby and it's a general reference, I figured there would be no better place to input this research. Thus, I created this article. I do believe that this list is my best work, and meets all of the criteria. I'm excited to see what you reviewers think of it. (A bit scared too.) Best wishes, MallardTV[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

[edit]
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Brand Name becomes !scope=col | Brand Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |Admelog becomes !scope=row | Admelog. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 16:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all the accessibility issues you pointed out- thanks a lot! MallardTV (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense

[edit]
Source review/comments

I'm not going to commit to a full source review just yet but due to my knowledge of WP:MEDRS I feel like I might be able to help out a bit here.

  • I'm not sure the exact threshold for using sources for images but File:Insulin short-intermediate-long acting.svg may benefit from a source.
  • You have a couple bare URLS that should be fixed
  • Some of the journals are wikilinked and some are not. I'd consider switching to either all linked or not linked.
  • Upon first glance, while Basaglar and Abasaglar are regional., However, other smaller pharmacutical companies also produce insulin, such as Mannkind (Afrezza), Viatris (Semglee), Lupin (Lupisulin), and Biocon (Basalog and unbranded insulins)., It was developed by Sanofi-Aventis., providing a steady insulin level, in contrast to fast-acting bolus insulins., Insulin degludec is a modified form of insulin in which a single amino acid is deleted compared to human insulin. It is also conjugated to hexadecanedioic acid via a gamma-L-glutamyl spacer at the amino acid lysine at position B29., The most common side effects include hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea., Insulins that are used mostly in humans are sometimes also used in animals such as cats and dogs., and Lente insulin is currently produced by Merck Animal Health under the name Vetsulin. appear to be unsourced.
  • The way the tables are cited (as in having the ref right by the name) makes it unclear where you are getting the information forthe manufacturer and other info from.
  • [9] is giving me an error code
  • Is there a more updated source for [10]
  • Again I would look for a more updated ref for [11] (take a read through WP:MEDDATE)
  • Same applies for any ciation before 2015 excluding cocherane reviews. If there is no newer sources or the newer sources are lower quality then no use in changing them but it's something to consider.
Additional comments
  • From a technical point of view I see some things that could be improved upon such as Common side effects include hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) which should be written as low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) according to WP:MTAU. Additionally this only has to be stated the first time you use the term hypoglycemia and then you can either stick to using the term hypoglycemia or low blood sugar
  • There is quite a few very short standalone sentences that should be merged or expanded per WP:LAYOUT.
  • treat hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium levels). same as my first point
  • gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications, including diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic states Since this bit is in the lead it could use some work to make it less technical
  • A very brief explanation of the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes may be helpful but it depends more on if the list contents heavily revolve around the difference
  • Some minor overlinking (liver is linked twice for example, and countries don't need to be linked)
  • It is typically administered by injection under the skin it may be important (I'm not sure as I haven't read the source) if the medication is typically administered into the fat or muscle (assuming fat due to the locations you listed).

Okay I think I've given you quite a bit to work with right now. Let me know if you have any questions. Keep up the great work! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I dealt with the citation stuff and the technical stuff. It looks like i fixed the overlinking. The difference between types isn't important from an insulin standpoint. MallardTV (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know about the difference not being relevant. There is still some unrefernaced areas. This is optional but the pdfs that were bare links may benifet from the website name and/or an archive date just cause pdfs seem to be especially prone to link rot. Additionally, since you've added access dates for other websites, your other citations should have them aswell (when their is a url that is). I'm still seeing some inconsistancies in the linking of journals/publishers as well as some bare urls. [12] should have the doi added as well. Did you look into more updated studies for some of the older citations? Once you tidy up the refs a bit I'll continue with my source review. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Checking the older refs, there are indeed some sparse more recent things that have the same info. However, these seem to be much less reliable and as stated earlier just say the exact same thing. As for the journal linking, I think I got all the ones that have wiki articles. I added some more refs in sparse areas as well. MallardTV (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the newer sources aren't as reliable then older sources work just fine. providing a steady insulin level, in contrast to fast-acting bolus insulins. and Lente insulin is currently produced by Merck Animal Health under the name Vetsulin. both appear to be unsourced. I'm going to go through each ref and point out any issues I find.
  • [13] add DOI, add access date for url, link journal, add volume page number info etc
  • [14] add volume, issue, page number etc
  • [15] wikilink journal
  • [16] Capitilize drug name. Side note, capitilization should be consistent throughout the article, instead of just using the capitilization the source uses meaning anything after a colon need a capital.
  • [17] add journal link
  • [18] wikilink journal
  • [19] wikilink pub
I'm starting to realize that the vast majority of your refs have inconsistences. Could you please look through the sources and look for these inconsitencies yourself? use the suggestions I have provided thusfar to guide you. For each citation look for missing info, wikilinks that could be added, and punctiation/grammar within the citation title. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I should be done in a day or so... MallardTV (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it- archived some stuff too. MallardTV (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* @Hey man im josh, Giants2008, and PresN: I'm pinging the FLC Coords here because I've never opposed a nom before and I'm not quite sure the threshold for such. I feel like I have gotten into a WP:FIXLOOP here. I've asked 3 times that the nominator fixes unsourced passages, be consistent with citation formatting etc. and each time they fix one or two of the issues and ignore the rest. I've tried really hard to lay out the steps to fix these issues but it seems like I'm not getting very far. I want to be clear, I think this is an interesting list, and especially as a medical editor I want to see it pass, I'm just not sure if I should step away or oppose. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too great with refs and I really do want to get this passed. I apologize for wasting your time and I'll really work to get everything fixed before I bother you again. MallardTV (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm going to attempt a source review here. Starting with reliability;
@IntentionallyDense Looking at the older refs, including the ones you pointed out, I would personally not want to change them. They may be older, but they have all the same info as new sources. This is becuase insulin analogues do not change. Once they are released, people adjust to them, so they can never be modified. This is the reason they just keep making new analogues. These sources I'm using are sometimes from right when these analogues released, but nothing has changed since them. The analogue I use: aspart, has remained unchanged for 25 years now. So I do believe I have proper justification for any older refs I could find. MallardTV (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I may need to seek some opinions from WP:MED here, would it be okay if I posted on your behalf there? To my understanding, the reason why more recent publications are important, is because even if you are right about nothing haven changed, readers won't know that unless they commit a significant amount of time to researching that. For example if I say "smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer" and cite a 1987 study showing that, the readers only know that in 1987 we had evidence of that. However if I write the same thing and cite a 2024 study, readers know that this statement is backed up by the most recent literature we have available. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats's true, and feel free to post on my behalf. However, the article really only details the mechanism of action, which doesn't need anything to back it up since the original publications were what detailed it to start, and many newer works are based from. @IntentionallyDense MallardTV (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm going to check for recent pubs for a couple of the older sources and then if nothing comes up I'm just going to WP:AGF regarding the rest of the sources. I checked a couple older refs and can confirm that at least in those there was no better substitute so I will be moving on with this source review.
Starting with formatting, ref 6 should have the journal wikilinked. 54 and 55 both say "accessed on xyz" while the rest of your refs say retrieved on. I would change this for consistency. ref 78 should have the journal wikilinked. Ref 152 should be changed so that there isnt just a url in it. Ref 123 journal should be wikilinked.
Next I'm going to make sure that all WP:Biomedical information is sourced appropriately.
It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis. is borderline and could do with a better source.
For your 4th paragraph in the lead I would just move the ciation to the end of the para to reduce the amount of citations in the lead.
The first two paragraphs under Insulin lispro contain biomedical info and should have a MEDRS source. Same with the first 2 paragraphs under Insulin aspart, the first paragraph of Insulin glulisine, the first 2 paragraphs of Insulin detemir, first 2 paragraphs of Insulin glargine, first 2 paras of Insulin degludec/liraglutide, and the first paragraph under Veterinary insulins.
Its effects usually begin within 30 minutes and last around 8 hours is biomedical info as well.
For the second paragraph in NPH insulin I would move some of the refs so you aren't citing the same sources after each sentence.
nsulin icodec is a medication used to enhance glycemic control in individuals with diabetes is biomedical info.
I would reduce the amount of refs in the first para of Insulin icodec as well.
The first 2 paragraphs of General mixtures are borderline and would benefit from some MEDRS sources.
is a fixed-dose combination medication that combines insulin glargine and lixisenatide for the treatment of diabetes. The most common side effects include (hypoglycemia, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea. is biomedical info.
I know that's a lot of stuff but hopefully you can find some MEDRS sources for this. Let me know if you have questions. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Good morning! I think I found suitable refs for all of the biomedical info. I also fixed everything you pointed out to me. MallardTV Talk to me! 13:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ref 35, 38, 93, 119, and 185 all have the accessed instead of retrieved which should be fixed. ref 6 should have the journal wikilinked.
I still think you could find a better source for It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis
I made an edit to show you what I meant about reducing the amount of refs.
Often, a longer-acting insulin, such as insulin NPH, is also required. and It is generally considered safe for use during pregnancy and breastfeeding needs a MEDRS source. Same with A longer-acting insulin, such as insulin NPH, is generally needed as well. and Intravenous injections may be used for severe hyperglycemia and Its effects usually begin within 30 minutes and last around 8 hours and all the info about safety during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and Other serious side effects may include low blood potassium levels and he most frequently reported side effect is hypoglycemia (low blood glucose)
Overall it's looking better but still needs some fixes. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Did the best I cound for the accessed thing, but web citations seem to use retrieved no matter what I do. Everything else should be in order though. MallardTV Talk to me! 22:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to respond to this. The accessed thing may be a template thing so sorry on my part for that. For It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis. is there not a MEDRS source which clearly states insulin analogs are used for these disorders? I'm hoping we can find one source to replace the 4 we have since many of them are not MEDRS. I can help look for some as well. This source [23] verifies the diabetes claims, this source [24] verifies the gestational diabetes claim, and this source [25] verifies the ketoacidosis claim. Other than that, I believe the only other source that should be changed is the The most frequently reported side effect is hypoglycemia (low blood glucose). IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense I was sick with the flue but I'm back and I think I fixed it all! MallardTV Talk to me! 13:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a source spot check. I may break it up a bit cause there is a lot of sources to check.
  • ref 2 [26] is verified
  • Ref 9 [27] verifies For example, Rezvoglar and Basaglar are both formulations of insulin glargine. However, Rezvoglar contains insulin glargine-aglr, while Basaglar is simply insulin glargine but does not verify the general statement of Although two brands may contain the same insulin analog, they may contain different formulations of that analog, meaning they are not biosimilar, and therefore not interchangeable.
  • ref 16 is verified [28] however it may be relevant to mention they are being discontinued
  • ref 24 [29] verified
  • ref 32 [30] isn't loading for me but this may be a regional issue
  • ref 40 [31] is verified
  • For ref 55 [32] remove BETTER as the author.
  • ref 49 [33] verified
  • ref 56 [34] verified
  • ref 65 [35] verified
  • ref 72 [36] verified
  • Not able to find Insulin glargine on the WHO list [37] could you point me to which page it's on?
  • ref 88 [38] verified
  • Not seeing the preperation methods in ref 97 [39].
Going to take a break there for now. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the wrong year for the WHO list, it was included in 2021. Oops. I think I fixed thye other stuff too MallardTV Talk to me! 00:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 31 [40] still isn't loading for me. An archive link would be appropriate here.
  • Ref 54 [41] should have Better removed as the author
  • Add year, publisher, and retrived date for [42]
  • Could you copy and paste from the website where you found the preperation methods for [43]?
  • ref 105 [44] verified
  • Remove smithsonion as author for ref 112 [45]
  • Having a hard time verifying Similarly to the modern brands of NPH and regular insulin, which are still sold, buffered regular insulins would be marketed under the name of the rest of the insulins in a brand's product line, followed by the letters BR from ref 113 [46] could you copy and paste from the source how it is supported?
  • ref 120 [47] verified
  • something weird seems to be going on with ref 122
  • Could you copy and paste from ref 128 [48] where it verifies the manufacturer and the vial part
  • refs 136 and 137 do not verify that the drugs are not approved for human use in the US just that they were discontunued
  • ref 144 [49] verified although I'm not sure why the American society is in the ref
  • ref 152 [50] is verified
I'm going to take another break for now. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the broken link for 32, I can't archive it archive site isnt loading for me rn but it should work. 35: "Liprolog medicines are available as solutions or suspensions for injection in vials, cartridges or prefilled pens." The BR name thing is simply supported by the fact that all BR insulins were sold under other broduct lines with BR replacing the normal letter. I agree ref 122 was messed up so I replaced it. For 128: Manufactured byPfizer Ltd, but it seems to be a really old generic and I can't find any other mention of it so I think it's best to get rid of it. I need to add a ref to include the withdrawn approval I'll do that now. I think that fixes everything this round @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 23:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the BR thing is that the source does not make the differentiation between buffered and non buffered insulin (at least from what I could find) so BR could technically stand for anything.
  • ref 160 [51] verified
  • ref 167 [52] verified
  • ref 177 [53] verified
  • ref 184 [54] verifed
  • ref 192 [55] verified
  • ref 200 [56] verified
That concludes my source spot check. Get back to me regarding the BR insulin and then I'll take another look at formatting and such. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'll take it out since nothing truly sources it. MallardTV Talk to me! 00:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
forgot to ping @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 00:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should hopefully be my last round of feedback.
  • Are all four citations needed for the row "Insuman" in the table?
  • Same with "Ryzodeg"
  • nsulin glargine/lixisenatide was approved for medical use in the United States... move citation to the end of the paragraph instead of having two identical citations in the para.
  • Insulin analogs developed for human use after Lente insulin's discontinuation have not yet been same as above
  • Not 100% sure here but I believe you could remove the brackets in the title for ref 2 [57]
  • Wikilink journal for ref 6 (using and instead of &)
  • Formatting across citations should be consistent, use a cite template for ref 10
  • ref 16, remove company name from title
  • wikilink journal for ref 20
  • remove www from ref 32
  • capitilize O for ref 36
  • use ref template for ref 36
  • same with ref 49 and 50 and 84 and 94 and 190 and 170
  • ref 171 has the FDA listed twice in the ref
  • wikilink journal for ref 156
  • wikilink journal in ref 147
  • same with ref 145
  • remove practo name from title in 128 and 129
  • wikilink journal for ref 113 (journal has since been renamed)
  • expand and put ref 97 and 98 into cite templates. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down those citations for Insuman and Ryzodeg. Fixed everything else, thank you! @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 12:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source review is passed but I didn't evaluate enough of the prose to give a decision on that. I would also say that the references may benefit from someone a bit more experience with citation formatting, taking a quick look at them. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 14:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Thank you so much! Will you be doing a prose review or should I ask around? Thanks, MallardTV Talk to me! 02:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave some broad suggestions above, I'd suggest you take those and apply them to the entire article. Other than that I will not be doing a prose review. However if there are questions specifically related to WP:MEDMOS or medical stuff, feel free to tag me and I'll try my best to help. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you so much for the source review! With my obvious inexperience with citations, it helped a whole lot. Thanks, @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 12:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

This review is based on this version of the article.

  • Link to Drugs.com in references that use it as the publisher instead of the unlinked or www.drugs.com (consistency in the works/website/publisher field is important)
  • Ref 2 – Change website to United States National Library of Medicine
  • Refs 8, 29, 39, 62, 65, 74, 78, 107 – Expand the reference from just the title of the PDF
  • Refs 9, 28, 30, 73, 75, 106 – Link to European Medicines Agency as the website. Remove "| European Medicines Agency (EMA)" from the title
  • Refs 16, 67, 79 – Change publisher to/wikilink American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
  • Refs 19, 43, 111, 113 – Link to DailyMed as the website
  • Refs 20, 46, 52, 82 – It should just be "Food and Drug Administration", not "U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)", to match the target page. It should also consistently be wikilinked.
  • Ref 40 – properly expand the reference from a URL
  • Refs 45, 81, 112, 114 – Remove (EMA) from the website field
  • Ref 71 – Remove " - WebMB" from the title
  • Ref 71 – Use WebMD as the website
  • Ref 88 – Link to Medical News Today as the website
  • Ref 98 – Wikilink European Medicines Agency
  • Ref 100 – Link to Health Canada as the website
  • Ref 111 – Remove "DailyMed - " from the title
  • Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|February 2025}} template to the top of the article under the short description

That's what I've got to start. I can look it over for consistency in references again once there's been more consistency in the references. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Thanks man! The dates thing is really weird! I standardized then all but for some reason it reverted. MallardTV (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I fixed everything you pointed out! MallardTV (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More feedback, without going through it with a fine toothed comb just yet:
  • Drugs.com is still not linked everywhere it could be in the references (I think you just missed this point)
  • Remove "www." from the website name of references
  • Ref 2 – Link to United States National Library of Medicine
  • Ref 6, 26, 61, 88 – Change website to "Lilly Medical"
  • Ref 29 – Add publisher and access date
  • Ref 8 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 12 – Wikilink Afrezza
  • Ref 13 – Change website to match other sources from this, and list it as Food and Drug Administration and remove Office of the Commissioner" as the author
  • Ref 24 – Lets Wikilink to Admelog
  • Ref 25 – Change website to match other sources from this, and list it as Food and Drug Administration and remove Office of the Commissioner" as the author
  • Ref 39 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 40 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 47 – Add |via=[[Google Patents]] to the reference
  • Ref 53 – Link to MannKind Corporation
  • Ref 53 – Add date
  • Ref 54 – Link to British National Formulary
  • Ref 57 – List to WHO Model List of Essential Medicines
  • Ref 60 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 62 – Link to Medscape
  • Ref 63 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 66 – Link to GoodRx
  • Ref 70 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 103 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 105 – Match target, use Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism instead of using "&"
I've been focusing strictly on reference formatting, not verifying references for what it's worth. I'm also sure there's more I haven't caught, but I figured I found enough with this pass to provide for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinking to the insulin trade names is not something I think should be done, wince they are all redirects to the page for the insulin analogs and provide no info on the brands themselves. MallardTV (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since^ MallardTV (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the list and fixed everything you've pinted out to me @Hey man im josh MallardTV (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing Drugs.com linked everywhere yet @MallardTV. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I just went into source and fixed all 6 unlinked. MallardTV (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per our discussion, it appears there are still some consistency issues with reference formatting. You also did not remove the "www." from website names in references. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I got rid of the www, what are the other issues? MallardTV (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned elsewhere I think you should ask for a review to be performed by someone more familiar with WP:MEDRS. I typically look for consistent formatting styles and reliability of various sources, but this isn't one where I'd be comfortable doing so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll ask around. I know it's probably annoying that I ask this, but I assume due to your unfamiliarity with MEDRS that you are unable to give a support. Is that the case? Either way the comments you have left are a huge help, thank you. @Hey man im josh MallardTV (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

I'll need to review this again, but a brief review yielded the following sporadic comments:

  • The reference column should be centered.
  • If only 2 of the 13ish rows in the 'General mixtures' mixtures have images, why note move the two to the text directly above and simply eliminate the column?
  • "The most common side effects include (hypoglycemia, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea" - errant parenthesis
  • "approved for medical use in the United States in November 2016, and in the European Union in January 2017." - Does the exact month matter to the reader?
  • Can you define/explain "Ultralong-acting" in its section?
  • "All Insulin analogues" - capitalization issue.
  • "The three companies which produce the most insulin are Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. These three corporations" - Bit repetitive. Rephrase for flow.
  • "It is also of note that many insulin analogues are available unbranded" --> "Many insulin analogues are available unbranded" for WP:CONCISION

This list may require a visit to the WP:GOCE. ~ HAL333 18:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 A few things. I don't know how to make the columns centered... I don't think there is enough space in the general mixtures section to put the images out of the table without making it cluttered. The months matters a bit becuase with just the years it could just as easily be a 18 month gap instead of 2. Thanks MallardTV Talk to me! 18:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian placenames affected by derussification

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dan the Animator and Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We started working on this list together some months ago but a lot of the progress came more recently after we did a lot of edits and fixes that have really improved the list. Shwabb's done an especially amazing job researching and expanding the list and fixing the table and so many other things that we think with the recent edits we can get this promoted! :) It's quiet a long list (much longer than my city lists promoted last year) but Shwabb and I will continue to be working on it diligently and addressing any comments and suggestions that come up. Looking forward to all the feedback and many thanks in advance for the support! Dan the Animator 00:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think you're allowed to have the extra table headers in the middle of the table. For example, under Administrative divisions, the table has two headers (one for raions and one for urban districts). It's my understanding those would need to be two separate tables, with Raions and Urban districts as the table captions for each, respectively. Also, and this is just a personal preference, I usually put a column down the far-right side for references, as narrow as possible, because it makes a table look neater without the citations throughout. But, like I said, that's just me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And with the table under Populated places, I would probably have the Raion as the first column, followed by Old name, New name, then Type, Date, and Notes. The type (village, city, etc.) is not really the focus; the focus is the raion. And breaking the tables up by Oblast would make them more navigable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find this article interesting, because I also have an article up for FL review on a Ukrainian topic (Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships), and one thing I did encounter while sourcing the article was a lot of changes from a Russian spelling to a Ukrainian spelling, particularly with a lot of skaters' names. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bgsu98 for the comments! :) To reply to each point:
  • About the extra table headers in the middle of the table, I haven't seen any policy against it and I remember seeing a successful FL before with some mid-table headers too. Just in case though, I'll make a post on the FLC talkpage about it.
  • Shwabb and I considered having a ref column but we didn't think it was necessary plus the refs are mostly different for the law dates and for the name change reasoning so they don't align too well for their own separate column.
  • I disagree, I think the current organization with type -> raions -> names -> etc. is easier to read and the focus isn't the raion, its the populated place (i.e. its a list of populated places, not raions which is what the admin. divs table is for). The list was originally divided into over a dozen separate tables by oblast but that removes the sortability/comparability feature between oblasts and really takes away from the value of the list imo. Feel free to see how it used to be in this diff.
  • Thank you! It's a little different for personal names since its an individual/personal decision but both are related to the general decline of the Russian language in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion.
Let me know if there's anything else that can be improved and many thanks again for the comments! Dan the Animator 01:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had always been advised that the row header (the first column) should be what the row is about. Maybe the old name, maybe the new name, but the type is really not the focus and seems an odd choice for the header. As for the table headers, MOS:COLHEAD seems clear. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link! I feel like this is a case where the row headers should be allowed and that having 22 separate tables is really unhelpful though I'll defer to other editors for their opinions. Also pinging @Shwabb1: for their thoughts. Dan the Animator 01:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More detailed expansion of my WT:FLC post: Pseudo-headers (MOS:COLHEAD) aren't accessible and need to be fixed for a nomination to be promoted. Pseudo-headers like that look like headers, but that's not the way screen-reader software interprets them because they aren't actually headers, so there's not a lot of leeway for exceptions. I'd personally make the oblast a column, but it's your list to decide if you want to do that or split up the tables. The other major accessibility concern is your row headers, which right now are like |scope="row" align="left"|Village. This has two issues: 1) a "header" cell is indicated with a '!', not a '|', so it should be !scope="row" align="left"|Village. 2), and more importantly, the row header cell should uniquely identify the row, which "village" very much does not. Just like how a column header cell says "what's this column about", the row header cell says "what's this row about" - and the first row of "populated places" is about Chervona Sloboda/Sloboda, not about "village". Since this is a list of municipalities, not raions/oblasts, that means the "old name" cell (or the "new name" cell if you want) should be the row header. Now, the row header doesn't have to be the first cell in the row, though usually it is. You can leave it in the middle if you want. But aesthetically, typically you want the uniquely identifying bit first; I'd personally go old name-new name-type-raion-oblast-date-notes, but it's your list. --PresN 02:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest making the oblast the new table caption (these tables do not seem to have captions unless they're hidden), but yeah, making it a column would allow one to proceed without splitting the tables up. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @PresN:! :) I think the ordering you suggested is good and between the two options, I would also prefer having the oblast as a column instead of making separate tables. Also will fix the markup typos in a second too. About having oblasts as columns though, would the TOC navigation capability be preserved? Dan the Animator 02:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as long as you get the formatting right the 'id="Cherkasy Oblast"' thing works whether or not the cell spans the width of the whole table. That's the thing about pseudo-headers, they're actually the same as any other table cell, which is why non-visual software gets confused. --PresN 03:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I like the way the table is now but considering all the above including MOS:COLHEAD, I agree that the table should be rearranged. PresN's suggestion (with oblasts in a separate column) sounds good to me as well. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 05:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where you've made improvements to the tables. Maybe it's just me, but I would left-justify that first column since all of the other columns are left-justified. Other than that, they look great! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Bgsu98:!! :) About the first column text alignment, the markup code for left alignment is there but it doesn't show since they're all row header cells? (or something else, I'm not too sure). I also think having the first column text left aligned would be better so any help or ideas with fixing it would be great though no worries if you aren't too sure either. Dan the Animator 23:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I coded the first row for you so it’s now left-justified. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!!! :) Dan the Animator 00:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bgsu98: I completely finished fixing the table code and Shwabb and I have done a lot of improvements since your comments so let us know if there's anything else you think should be improved or if you're ready to support now. Thanks! Dan the Animator 07:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I missed this earlier. I'm taking a look at the article now.
    • You use the word raion in the very first paragraph and it should probably be wikilinked, and actually probably defined in the prose, as that is not a term most people would recognize.
    • On the Populated places table, I would personally rowspan the Type column to match the Raion, Oblast, and Date columns. Also, what is the difference between a city, a village, and a rural settlement? Perhaps a brief explanation above the table (ie. "In Ukraine, cities are defined as..., while villages are defined as..., etc.")?
    These are just some suggestions. This article shows a tremendous amount of work and the improvements to the tables are great! I also appreciate seeing articles of Ukrainian interest brought to the forefront considering current events. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Shwabb for the edits about the above. Not sure how you feel about it but for the Type rowspan suggestion, I think the current table setup makes more sense so best to leave that part as-is for now so we can discuss it later this week maybe. The thing for the settlement types description I can help with (think it would make a good efn note) but feel free to start with it now if you want to. Dan the Animator 00:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, though I'm not sure if "district" should be wikilinked.
    • I think rowspanning the Type column could work, but it probably has to be limited by oblast, similarly to the Date column. Pinging @Dantheanimator for thoughts on this. As for the types of populated places, technically they don't have strict definitions. There is a relatively recent law that "defines" the three by population and population density, however these definitions can only be used as reasons to change status (if the process is initiated by the local government). While it's implied that cities are relatively bigger or more important, that's not always the case (extreme examples: Uhniv with under 1000 people is a city, but Sofiivska Borshchahivka with over 25,000 people is a village). But overall I agree that some kind of footnote could improve the Type column. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You chose to include the Type as pertinent information; I think it's probably important to draw some kind of distinction, whether it's "official" or not, or else decide whether it was really that important to merit its own column in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I just added an explanatory footnote to the Type column of the populated places table. Let me know what you think about it. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 12:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The note looks good. Personally, I would still rowspan the Type entries, even if it's, as you suggested, limited to oblasts. It just looks jarring to see Village repeated over and over and over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't mind rowspanning those. However, I just noticed there's something that prevents that right now: the notes indicating populated places that are under Russian occupation. I suppose those could be moved to the Old Name or New Name column (or maybe even Notes), but for now I'll wait for Dan's comment on this. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You could always rowspan the Villages that have the same note, but not include the Villages that don't have that note, and vice versa. That way, the cells that have the same content are rowspanned. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I see what you mean, but that could look out of place. Moving the notes to a different column seems to me as a better option (if it is ultimately decided to rowspan). Now I realize that it could also be argued that whether the individual settlement is under occupation does not describe the type of the populated place, but the populated place itself, so those notes may need to be moved regardless. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry for the delay (this week's been on the busier side off-wiki) but I see Shwabb's already added in the footnote and the part to the lead defining raions so all of that's set I think. About rowspanning, I agree the repetition is not ideal but per the reasoning Shwabb described really well just below, it just conceptually doesn't make sense to rowspan it. It's one thing to have raion/oblast/date rowspanned but the type col is fundamentally different: raion/oblast & date/law are defined by the specific places that they include; for example, village is not defined as meaning "the status type of the populated places of Sulynivka, Hrintal, Chorne, etc." but instead is a more general concept referring to places recognized by parliament as being rural and smaller than rural settlements. Plus, many other long and repetitive lists have avoided rowspanning the type column (check this FL for a great example with 1,000+ items). There's also a general concern I have about making the list markup too complicated with overlapping rowspans and I think three is already plenty enough. Hopefully this reasoning makes sense but I can explain it more if it helps and also Shwabb, if you feel strongly for rowspanning the type, I'm also open to considering it but I personally don't think it's the best change.
      About the territorial control efns, thanks for noticing that and great point Shwabb. Personally, I wasn't sure if it'd make more sense to put it on the old name/new name so I just opted to put them in the type column but we could definitely move them. I would think the new name column would make the most sense since the control efns have the role of implying that the new names are de jure and not de facto but I could also see the efns in the old name col as well. @Bgsu98: let me know if Shwabb's edits and this reply help and if there's any other suggestions you have/if you're ready to support. Thanks! Dan the Animator 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see why the current setup makes sense also. Raion, Oblast, Date are rowspanned as they cover multiple populated places (many are located in one administrative division / covered by the same law). However, the Type column is different - it describes individual populated places. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, the rowspan is just my personal preference, but it is your article and certainly not a dealbreaker. I am happy to support your article for promotion to FL status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Bgsu!! :) Dan the Animator 15:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • The pseudo header should be moved to their own column that states the oblast something is in. This is for accessibility, I don't think screen readers know they are headers.
  • Raion and name should be switched because I am pretty sure it is standard to have what the row is about in the first column.
  • There are four cn tags that most definitely need to be removed.
  • Dnipropetrovsk Oblast,

Donetsk Oblast, Kharkiv Oblast, Kherson Oblast, Khmelnytskyi Oblast, Kirovohrad Oblast, Kyiv Oblast, Luhansk Oblast, Lviv Oblast, Mykolaiv Oblast, Odesa Oblast, and Poltava Oblast can be removed as they are not used.

  • There are many dates that could be merged, for example 26 September 2024 in the Rivne Oblast.
  • Vinnytsia Oblast, Volyn Oblast, Zakarpattia Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, and Zhytomyr Oblast can also be removed.
  • Sumy Oblast can be removed.
  • Cherkasy Oblast can be removed.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are planning to deal with the pseudo-headers and the arrangement problems (I see Dan already started a user subpage for that).
    • I think the dates in Rivne Oblast are already merged? Though not all populated places are grouped by date of renaming because the rows are arranged alphabetically (by oblast, then by raion, then by new name of individual populated place), for example see the Kyiv Oblast section that's broken up because of Pereiaslav.
    • Will work on the remaining cn tags soon. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To follow-up on what Shwabb said, I started all the table work that PresN suggested above and will hopefully have it completely/mostly finished by the end of the week (just a little earlier moved the beginning of that work from my user subpage to the article table and also completely fixed the Administrative divisions table markup so feel free to check that). @History6042: for the Oblasts removal, are you talking about the links in the table of contents? I tested them and they still work (on both the Admin. divisions table and the populated places table). Or is about something else?
      About merging dates, I can't see any that are left for merging either thought let me know if you spot any. The list is alphabetical like Shwabb described so there are some cases of the dates being separated though there's no way to avoid this without de-alphabetizing parts of the list. I think Shwabb fixed most of the cn tags though we both will be adding more in-line references over the week. Let me know what you think about the Administrative divisions table and anything else that could be improved. Thanks! Dan the Animator 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I mean the oblast pseudo headers, and for the date I just accidentally had it in sort by date mode. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah got it, thanks! :) Dan the Animator 23:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @History6042: all the table code issues were fixed up and Shwabb's added in all the references into the lead so everything should be done. Let us know if there's anything else that can be improved or if you're ready to support now. Thanks! Dan the Animator 07:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Good job, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMD

[edit]

Lead

  • Footnote [b] seems to imply that the goal of the initial 2015 efforts, and the conclusion of the efforts in 2023, was the renaming of all "placenames connected to communism and the Soviet Union". Is that a stated goal of either/both legislations, or a secondary analysis of the result? All is a high bar.
  • Further, footnote [b] about "communism and the Soviet Union" is appended to "Russia and Russian imperialism". Obviously the topics are linked, but they could be used differently, so it's curious the wordings are different. (Also the text later in the paragraph specifically states "Russian communist figures", rather than all communism, which does have a different implication.)
  • "restoration of original historical placenames", would suggest removing "original", no guarantees there weren't earlier names. (A similar thought may apply to the table, where "Original" might be better replaced with "Former".)
  • "Derussification has also included the respellings or rewordings of names to match standard spelling and word usages in the Ukrainian language." Is this because of a particular change or changes in Ukrainian orthography (and if so is there a subsection of Ukrainian orthography that can be linked), or is it because names were spelt with a more Russian orthography, or both? (The same question applies for the "numerous placenames have had spelling and grammatical adjustments" sentence.)
  • "During the Soviet period, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s, officials engaged in a significant renaming campaign", the links to 1920s and 1930s here don't help the reader understand the topic, but a link to a specific section of Russification of Ukraine would help. Same with footnote [c].
  • "generic propaganda toponyms", just checking assumptions, "generic" here is implying not connected to the particular place?
  • "notably with the renaming of the city and oblast of Rivne on 11 June 1991 to bring it in line with Ukrainian language standards" From what to what! Even if just in a footnote, that would be helpful.
  • "derussification remained limited and was not actively pursued", this is a bit of an odd statement. If derussification was an ongoing (albeit limited) process, that would mean it would have to have been actively pursued in some respect.
  • "most Russian names". This small linguistic implication raises an important point. The paragraph up to this point has framed derussification as a response to russification. However, "Russian names" is broader, and could imply the changing of even organic/local Russian names.
  • The last sentence also brings me back to my footnote [b] point. I'm not sure a reader without background knowledge will understand the entwined history linking Russia, Ukraine, and communism, or understand the history of the Russian language in Ukraine, and thus why decommunization might be seen as different to derussification. Do any of the sources try to explain this?
  • Footnote [b] says decommunization was passed in 2015, whereas the text says it was enacted in 2016. I assume that's due to a delay between passing and enacting, but it would be clearer if both used the same date if referring to the same legislation (whichever is the more relevant one).

Table

  • "Followed renaming of its administrative center to Samar", perhaps this could be changed to "In line with the renaming of its...", as following may imply a temporal difference and these seem to have happened at the same time.
  • "Named after Alexander Suvorov", perhaps this should be changed to "Formerly named...". It would also be interesting to get an explanation of the new name, but I understand that might overclutter the already extensive table.
  • Related to above comments on orthography, "Did not match Ukrainian language standards" is also very vague. Гудзівка to Ґудзівка seems very different to Южне to Світанок, and in another case Южне turned into Південне!

On the topic of making the "Notes" column clearer, is "Notes" used for anything besides "Reason for change"/"Meaning of old name"? If not, has making that the second column been considered? That would make it Old name -> Explanation -> New name -> the other columns which are more for sorting/context than providing information about each change. Perhaps date should be the fourth column, as it seems more relevant than the broader location. CMD (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply (I won't be able to address everything at the moment but hopefully will clear up most concerns and confusions).
Lead
1. I've looked through both laws, and neither uses the word "all" in this context. There are some exceptions to both laws (most notably the exclusion of Soviet Ukrainians who fought during WWII), so it is true that technically not all placenames related to the USSR were/will be renamed. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the footnote implies that all are included, as it says that "numerous" (some, but not necessarily the rest) Soviet-related placenames remained in place.
2. The recent law (focusing on derussification) does mention USSR and Russian SFSR in its definition of the term "Russian imperalist policy". Before this law, decommunization and derussification would be considered different, but now the two are essentially combined, and there's definitely a lot of overlap between the two even if they're viewed as separate. As for the "Russian communist figures" part -- good point, neither of the sources mentions Russian figures specifically, so I'll remove the word "Russian".
3. Also fair point, will change that.
4. It is because the names were spelled based on Russian orthography (or mixed Russian/Ukrainian, which could be considered Surzhyk).
5. That makes sense, I'll change it in a minute.
6. Yes.
7. Rovno to Rivne, will update.
8. Certain parties and organizations would call for derussification, but in practice it was limited, with only a few individual renamings in that period.
9. No part of the derussification laws implies that names of native Russian origin are to be excluded. Yes, the law is mostly a response to russification, but in its current state it does cover local Russian names.
11. Yes, the laws were passed in 2015 and enacted in 2016.
Table
1. Will change this.
3. In the case of Yuzhne, it is derived from Russian Юг (Yug), meaning "south". The Ukrainian word for south is Південь (Pivden), thus the correct spelling according to the Ukrainian language standards would be Pivdenne. However, that specific settlement (for a reason I can't find) was renamed to Svitanok, likely after a request from the local government, possibly based on another request from locals. Either way, the reason for renaming this populated place in the first place was to remove a toponym that didn't match Ukrainian language standards, although the outcome was different from the majority of such cases. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 17:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks CMD for the comments and Shwabb for following up on it!! :) I can finish addressing the rest of the suggestions either later today or Thursday. Also Shwabb what do you think of CMD's suggestion of rearranging the table. I think it's workable though I'd probably create a sample first to see how it looks before going fully with it. Dan the Animator 17:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Old Name and New Name should be next to each other, as this gives the reader an obvious "before and after". Adding a possibly long explanation inbetween would disrupt this simplicity. As this is the largest column by size and it stands out from the rest, I think it aesthetically fits in the far end. In general, I agree that the Date column is more relevant, but it contains information about the renaming (just like the Notes column), while the Type, Raion, and Oblast columns contain information about the specific populated place. I think it makes sense to group the columns with similar information together, thus I'm satisfied with the current layout personally. You should still test CMD's suggestion though to see how it looks. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(To add to previous response)
Lead
10. I believe a lot of sources explain parts of this. The lead already gives some context to when the names affected by decommunization and derussification were introduced. Would you agree that more explanation is needed on the distinction between the two?
Table
2. Overall I agree with the idea, but would it not be repetitive if every single cell in the column started with "formerly named" or something similar? Even at the moment, there's a lot of repetition with "Old name" or "Previously named". This column definitely needs some rework. As for the new name explanations, some of them are indeed interesting but the problem with mentioning them is that (especially for villages) it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to find out why certain specific new names were chosen. I think the reason for why the name changes happened in the first place is more important to mention. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 14:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Shwabb, many apologies for the long delay in my reply and I can't thank you enough for your extraordinary patience! :) I had some off-wiki challenges come up but after mostly resolving the last of them yesterday, I should be able to get back and finish up the rest of the necessary edits/replies hopefully very soon and I think I have a good idea of how to finish up everything. I'll send additional replies here sooner than later but I think there's not much left to do before this'll get passed. Also I saw and had to say, great work with the heritage sites the past few weeks! ;) Dan the Animator 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Footnote 1 implies that 2015 left, so to speak, unfinished business. "narrow interpretations" suggests that there was a gap between the legislation's drafters, and the later actions of the executive, rulings of the judiciary, or similar. "and resistance" then suggests that in addition to the narrow interpretation, the number of names changed was further reduced. So there are two implied steps of names that were removed. "and were only later removed" indicates that all the names from these two steps, or at least all that are "connected to communism and the Soviet Union", were brought back into contention by the 2023 legislation.
2. To clarify, you're stating that the 2015 legislation was for "decommunization", which at the time was seen as distinct (albeit heavily overlapping) with "derussification". Then by 2023 (with a very changed national context) the "derussification" law broadly (per the footnote "more comprehensive") covered both of these previously somewhat distinct topics?
4. Is there a wikilink that could be used for this, or a footnote?
8. What about changing "derussification remained limited and was not actively pursued" to "derussification efforts were sporadic"? You'll have a better understanding of the source, but "sporadic" seems a better way to summarize the isolated local efforts.
9/10. I do think something more is needed here. Does the sentence "However, most Russian names not directly associated with communism or included in the decommunization legislation continued to stay in place as derussification remained less popular than decommunization" make sense to a reader if they don't already understand that Russian is a widely spoken native language in Ukraine, but also that it is not an official language? My assumption is that all Russian names have come under consideration due to the shift towards more Ukrainian over the past few years, even by native Russian speakers who (I assume again) in the past would be those objecting to changes such as the 2015 law. I think the current text hints towards this (eg. "derussification gained widespread public support"), but assumes to some extent the background knowledge.
11. Perhaps then sticking to just "[enacted in] 2016" would reduce potential misinterpretation.
Table.2/3. The arguments for not explaining the new names makes sense, however "historical name was returned" does do this, so current implementation is inconsistent. If the subject is kept the same each time (the "Old name" or the "Previous[ly] name"), then perhaps those words can be removed. "Old name alluded to the First of May"->"Alluded to the First of May", "Previously named after the Ural Mountains"->"Named after the Ural Mountains", "Renamed under the Soviet Union; historical name was returned"->"Name changed under the Soviet Union"/"Replaced historical name under the Soviet Union"? CMD (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. That all seems correct. Certain settlements (especially ones named after the color red and the First of May) could, by definition, fall under decommunization in 2015-16, but generally kept their names until recently as they're (arguably) not obviously glorifying communism (and some still keep such names but are to be renamed under current legislation).
2. Yes.
4. I'll look into that soon. Maybe Dan has some specific ideas on this (I'm not great with making footnotes!)
8. Done.
9/10. Your interpretation is correct here, I'll think on how to expand the lead for this part.
11. Also done.
Table 2/3. Dealt with the "historical name was returned" phrases. I agree that condensing the "Old name/Previously named" text would make the list better. @Dantheanimator, what are your thoughts on this? Should the title of the column be changed as well to something along the lines of "Reason for renaming"? Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Made a slight rewording: Due to legal limitations and narrow interpretations of decommunization legislation enacted in 2016 as well as resistance amongst some local authorities to renamings at the time for further clarity. The "legal limitations" refers to the fact the decommunization laws excluded some names (e.g. Soviet Ukrainian soldiers in WWII). Also, about CMD your reply above for "Footnote 1 implies that...", I couldn't have said it better myself! ;) And I agree with Shwabb's replies too; the derussification process & this list does cover quite a bit of "unfinished business" from the decommunization efforts
2. To reply to your original comment (Further, footnote [b] about "communism and the Soviet Union" is appended to): true; when I put the footnote there, the intention was to clarify that this list includes placenames in themselves that would be considered in the category of "communism and the Soviet Union" even though the list is mainly about the removal of placenames in the category of "Russia and Russian imperialism". One example is the village on this list called Lenina (named for Lenin); most other places called Lenina in Ukraine were renamed as part of decommunization but for this village, even though the name/etymology is identical to those other earlier-renamed places, it was renamed as part of/during derussification. So it's important readers understand that these purely communist names changed later on are part of the derussification inclusion of this list even though they would seem like decommunization name changes. I think Shwabb said it well too: since the 2023 law, decommunization has been effectively subsumed into derussification so I think having the efn note where it is makes sense. Also thanks Shwabb for fixing the "Russian communist figures" part! :)
4. Yup I have an idea for this :) I'll add in a hopefully good, descriptive efn note regarding Ukrainian orthography's changes/derussification & the shift away from Russian orthography/Surzhyk and how these led to/affected the respelling/rewording name changes.
9/10.
  • To build on Shwabb's first reply about the laws technically not prohibiting the removal of organic Russian names: footnote f ("Other exceptions to derussification provided by the laws include...") should basically list out most of the permissible exceptions to the 2023 law. Technically, based on those exemptions, it's not like most Russian-esque organic names are imminently at risk for renaming (i.e. the Krasnopil example from Zhytomyr Oblast and many other examples listed in ref #41) but there are still many "organic" Russian names that would fall outside the exemptions listed, like those named after Russian Tsars or other names potentially too (I can't think of any example at the moment of where the historical/"organic" Russian-esque name of a place was removed but maybe Shwabb might know some). In my opinion, I think another footnote would work fine enough to give additional context to readers. I can briefly explain the de facto & de jure status of Russian in Ukraine since independence, major changes in those statuses over the years with emphasis on public use/opinion & pre/post-2022 (also how Russian speakers affected the decommunization process), shift by essentially all Ukrainians towards full use of Ukrainian/abandonment of Russian, and some other helpful info.
  • Also I saw CMD you mentioned in your first reply about the "entwined history linking Russia, Ukraine, and communism, or understand the history of the Russian language in Ukraine, and thus why decommunization might be seen as different to derussification"; I'm not sure I fully understand the suggestion but I'm also thinking it might not be applicable anymore since points 1/2 above and all the other points generally cover this? We could cover this part after finishing the other points and a footnote could work here too (I really do like footnotes ;)
@Shwabb1: I'll add in the efn notes for point 4 (about orthography), 9/10 (about the Russian language background info), & that efn note I've been meaning to add in for a while about the switch/standardization to Ukrainian (KyivNotKiev) hopefully before the end of this week but in any case at the earliest I can get it finished. I'll also expand two of the existing efns, one to add in your great list of cities to be renamed Pavlohrad, Khrustalnyi, etc., and the other to add in more exceptions/examples from the Vox source in that lead comment I made before. About the table & point 2/3, I'll give a more detailed reply tomorrow/very soon so I can more thoroughly look over/test out everything. From first impressions though, changing the column title to "Reason for renaming" sounds good. For condensing the text... I'll want to take a careful look through it later this week/soonish and try out different things before deciding on anything now so we don't have to unnecessarily switch between different wordings/formattings. Any idea that cuts back on excess text/repetitiveness generally works well with me though.
I think that should cover everything regarding the lead but in case I missed anything, feel free to let me know and I'll definitely be able to reply sooner than later and hopefully get everything finished as soon as can be. Also, I won't be able to say thanks enough but thanks Shwabb for fixing so many of the suggestions and especially with the table! :) Dan the Animator 06:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dantheanimator and Shwabb1: Has everything been finished? @Chipmunkdavis: Is the list in a state that you're happy with or not yet? --PresN 21:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PresN thanks for the ping! I fell behind with things after catching a tough case of the flu last week but still working on this. Some footnotes to be added in/edited and some table work is left but otherwise it is close to being finished. I'll try to finish the rest of it soon as I can and will follow-up when ready. Dan the Animator 23:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal

[edit]

30 Rock season 4

[edit]
Notified: ThinkBlue, Staxringold, Courcelles, WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal because not only does it not meet the current MOS:TVPRODUCTION standards (namely the omition of the Production and development sections), but season articles also not really considered FLs. See also the related FLRCs for seasons 1, 2 and 3. Please note that this is the final remaining 30 Rock season FL. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While not stated anywhere definitively (see here), maybe this should wait to prevent too many active nominations by one person at one time? Otherwise, anyone who might object to these nominations might not get a fair chance to respond. I typically restrict myself to the FLC guidelines (two nominations, and only after one has significant support). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock season 3

[edit]
Notified: Staxringold, WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal because not only does it not meet the current MOS:TVPRODUCTION standards (namely the omition of the Production and development sections), but season articles also not really considered FLs. See also the related FLRCs for seasons 1 and 2. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Seasons are not lists so whatever the quality of this article is it cannot be a FL. Editors are free to renominate it on the article scale. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my comments at the season 2 FLRC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per other comments here and on season 2. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock season 2

[edit]
Notified: User:Jamie jca, WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meet the present-day standards for TV season lists as laid out in MOS:TVPRODUCTION in the years since it was promoted (namely the missing of key sections like filming and writing, along with sourcing to IMDB). The original nominator hasn't been active since 2010. I'm also going to nominate the remaining 30 Rock season FLs one at a time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist from a quick glance this could likely be a good candidate for GA with a little work for the issues noted above, but as myself and many have said before, season articles aren't lists. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Seasons are not lists so whatever the quality of this article is it cannot be a FL. Editors are free to renominate it on the article scale. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – the expected sections are all there and would be good after some polishing, but this type of page should be structured as an article first, not a list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Family Guy cast members

[edit]
Notified: Pedro thy master

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't believe this article meets the criteria for Featured List status. Unsourced statements, trivia, and improper table formatting are a few of the issues which are most obvious. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://ergngevd.top/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1290982487"