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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of international goals scored by Amber Hearn[edit]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am nominating Amber Hearn's list of international goals as I think I've thoroughly covered just about every aspect of the topic. The article has a good lead, encompassing but detailed stats section, solid archived match reports for each goal and an organised/simplistic list of goals. The full list of international matches by the NZ national team was sourced from The Ultimate NZ Soccer Website. Despite its name, it is endorsed by the RSSSF.

Hearn is a New Zealand international who last played for the NZ national team in 2018, she is the country's all time top scorer and often considered the best player from the country. She still plays club football, despite announcing her international retirement in 2020. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as a 3c failure. As the parent article, Amber Hearn, is barely more than a stub, this seems to fall foul of the content-forking guidelines, as this content could better be placed in that parent article as things stand. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Can I request that this nomination be withdrawn please? I'm just working on other stuff atm and it'll help clear up the FLC feed a bit.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of Coldplay live performances[edit]

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After extensive research and inclusion of nearly all shows Setlist FM have provided, I believe this list have reached a level of maturity and quality which warrants being featured. Coldplay's career as live performers is extensive, prolific and worthy of celebration. As a fan of the band, my bigger project here is making information about them accessible and reliable (i.e. List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay and Coldplay videography), furthermore, promoting this list would be a validation of such efforts. Review it kindly. Thank you. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just to make it clear, I used Setlist FM as a starting point but not for sourcing the list's material. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• 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="width:13em;" |Date becomes !scope=col style="width:13em;" |Date. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just gave a look into it. Can you check if I fixed this correctly? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn
I am back from vacation in college, so I would like to withdrawn this nomination until further notice. I need time to adress the issues that will be brought to me in the future and right now I don't have that time anymore.GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of railway stations in Melbourne[edit]

Nominator(s): NotOrrio (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working it on for the past two weeks and had even taken feedback from other editors during this process. The list article has almost entirley been changed in order to comply with the FL criteria including a new table and lead section. The lead covers the information on the network and gives a summary of the information included in the list. Additionally the list covers all important information including lines, transport connections and year opened NotOrrio (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Steelkamp[edit]

• Is there a source for lines? You could use [4].
• Is there a source for distance from Southern Cross?
• Is there a source for zones?
• The source for date opened is from 2010, so surely the stations opened since then require their own sources for opening date.
• Is there not a specific page number for "Anderson, Rick (2010). Stopping All Stations"? Or is the opening dates for the various stations scattered throughout?
• Is there a source for suburb? You could use a street directory or maybe there is an online map published by the Victorian government.
• Are there any sources for the Heritage and tourist railways section?
• Puffing Billy Railway, Mornington Railway and Yarra Valley Railway can be linked.
• What does "In this list only, an asterisk (*) indicates stations at which trains are not normally scheduled to stop, and exist primarily for heritage purposes" mean? It is unclear to me.
• What makes https://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/ reliable?
• What makes https://vicsig.net/ reliable?
• " "Media Release: NEW TIMETABLE TO IMPROVE METROPOLITAN TRAIN SERVICES". web.archive.org. 19 May 2011. Retrieved 26 February 2023." This reference format should be improved to name and link the original website and not just the web archive.
• " "Kennett-era project sets bar for affordable level crossing removal | Public Transport Users Association (Victoria, Australia)". Retrieved 25 February 2023." This reference should be changed so that the name of the website and the publication location isn't included with the title of the webpage.
• " Victoria, Public Transport. "Zones". Public Transport Victoria. Retrieved 17 February 2023." The author is malformed, presumably from using an automatically generating citation.
• If you're going to use publication location for some references, it should either be done for all references or none at all. It should be consistent.
• " https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PTV-default-site/Maps-and-Timetables-PDFs/Maps/Network-maps/Victorian-train-network-map.pdf" This reference is just a bare link.
• "and 19 more used as Heritage/Tourist railways." Doesn't need to be capitalised.
• Reference titles with all capital letters should be converted to title case as per MOS:ALLCAPS.
• "There are 221 suburban railway stations that are currently operational in Melbourne.[2] In addition to the 221 stations currently opened there are an additional 73 are closed to passengers and 19 more used as Heritage/Tourist railways." This could be reworded so that the 221 stations is not mentioned twice in a row.
• Contractions such as "don't" should be avoided.
• "Most railway stations take the name of their suburb however, there are several stations on the network that don't. Such stations take the name of a nearby area or landmark. Currently, Southern Cross and Batman are the only two exceptions to such naming standards. Most stations on the network provide some sort of transport connections. Bus connections are common at most suburban stations. Stations in the inner suburbs and the central business district additionally may offer tram connection. However, not all stations offer transport connections. This is most commonly seen in the outer parts of the city." This seems like original research. I also question whether the first three sentences are important enough to include.
• "(some stations are in the overlap between the two zones, where tickets for either zone may be used)." Long sentences in brackets should be avoided.
• "On 4 March 2007, zone 3 was abolished by being incorporated into zone 2." This seems like recentism. You would probably be better off not mentioning any history of the ticketing system and only mention how it works currently.
• "The level crossing removal at Mont Albert and Surrey Hills resulted in both stations being closed and replaced by the under construction of the new Union railway station, which brought the number of stations on the network from 222 to 221." Again, this seems like recentism. Unless you are going to do a short history of the entire system in the lead, this should be left out. Even if you do a history of the entire system, this would be too minor to mention.

That's all for now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

about the suburbs metro trains melbourne does put them on the stations sub page on their website however it there is no large list of every railway station's suburbs meaning a each station requires a source for the suburbs NotOrrio (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source 1 the network map is ment to source the entire paragraph if needed I can copy it
• Similar to the suburbs the zones are on the metro trains website but there is no large list
• Added sources for all the stations opened after 2010
• Decided to change it to "This asteriex indicates that the station is only opened for heritage/tourist based purposes"
• Most sources with publication location are done so because the source title includes the location for example big build victoria puts the station names in all their lxrp articles
• Removed 221 from the first paragraph
• Added a source of an old map network map including transport connections to back that up and removed the suburbs sentence
• Since the old network map (from 2011) includes the zones I could use that source for stations opened before and the metro trains melbourne source for the newer stations

NotOrrio (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp

Addressed all the feedback and had taken action on it except for the sourcing of the distance, zones and suburbs doe they need to be sourced i've read through other railway station featured lists for inspiration and they don't seem to have sources on such information NotOrrio (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added zones for suburbs and zones NotOrrio (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NotOrrio. I plan to have another look at this list later today. Steelkamp (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp, butting in to ask - it's 2 weeks since you made this comment. Any update? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've striked through the comments above that I believe have been adequately addressed. More comments below:

• "Formerly Footscray (Suburban) / Middle Footscray earlier Footscray (Main Line)." This doesn't make grammatical sense. Same with "Formerly Spottiswoode earlier Bayswater and earlier Edom".
• Citation titles in all uppercase should be changed to title case as per MOS:ALLCAPS.
• When you have an archived citation, the website parameter should be for the original website, not the archived website. E.g. www.dpc.vic.gov.au instead of web.archive.org
• There is an inconsistency between using domain names and website names for the website name parameter in citations. E.g. you've got "www.metrotrains.com.au", but then "Victoria's Big Build". Citation style needs to be consistent.
• "Connect people appointed to bayswater level crossing removal". Place names should be capitalised.
• Metro Tunnel is not a service is it? Other services will run on the Metro Tunnel. Why is it in the services column next to the Metro Tunnel stations?
• LXRP is an acronym that has not been explained.
• I'm thinking that former names should probably be removed entirely. Most of them are not sourced and it is hard to ensure you have listed them comprehensively.
• I reckon for the transport connections column, the icon should link to the article on the transport mode instead of the station, which is already linked in the name column. Those icons should also have a key at the top.
• There is still no source for the distance from Southern Cross.
• "with the main underground section being in the City Loop". How about changing that to "with the main underground section being the City Loop". What other underground sections are there?
• "These electrified 16 lines are the..." Change this to "The electrified lines are the..."
• "...Sandringham line and the Flemington Racecourse line." Change this to "...the Sandringham line and the Flemington Racecourse line."
• " In addition to these 16 electrified lines there is also the Stony Point line which operates as a shuttle service between Frankston and Stony Point." This can be simplified to "There is also the Stony Point line which operates as a shuttle service between Frankston and Stony Point."
• "...provide some sort of transport connections." Change this to "provide connections to other modes of transport."
• https://melbournesptgallery.weebly.com/ is definitely not a reliable source.
• "Bus connections are common at most suburban stations. Stations in the inner suburbs and the central business district additionally may offer tram connection." I suggest changing this to "Bus services are common at most suburban stations. Stations in the inner suburbs and the central business district commonly have tram services."
• "However, not all stations offer transport connections. This is most commonly seen in the outer parts of the city." This sentence may be redundant and could be removed.
• Putting long sentences in brackets should be avoided.
• Why is List of currently operational stations hideable but List of future stations and List of tourist/heritage stations not hideable? Should the first table even be hideable?
• "c. April 1891" and " c. December 1888" aren't sorting into correct date order.
• ".76" and ".8". There should be a leading 0 here.
• Figures such as "24.5" and "39.5" should have a trailing 0 so that they have the same number of decimal places as the other figures.
• Image column should not be sortable. Notes column should not be sortable.

As several of my initial comments are yet to be fixed and with so many more comments now, I don't believe this article is likely to meet the featured list criteria soon, and so I have to oppose. Steelkamp (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThylacineHunter: Is the source added here publicly accessible somehow (e.g. in a library or published online somewhere)? I just want to make sure its not some internal document that has not been made public anywhere. Steelkamp (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to share the link to where the original source is published online. These same values are reproduced on various "fan" websites like Vicsig, but these sites have caused issues with WP:RS in the past, and I thought I would remove this issue by bypassing it and going to where they get their info from. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without this source, the next available "published" ones I know of that are publicly accessible are the "c1927 Victorian Railways Diagram of Gradients & Curves" and the "1927 Victorian Railways Grades Book - Supplementary Diagrams". Both are now extremely out of date (as most stations have been rebuilt at slightly new locations, lines have also changed) and the fact they are in miles to the nearest 1/4 mile. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a problem then. Sounds like these are fan sites who are leaking internal documents which do not meet the published criterion of WP:SOURCE. Steelkamp (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I recognise the difficulty of getting a source for the distancing. For a similar reason, I have not nominated List of Transperth railway stations for FL as I haven't found a source which has the distances of the Airport line stations from Perth station. Steelkamp (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list will need to keep the distances column as it is useful to sort the stations by distance (while sorting by suburb is basically useless). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible Vicsig may have gotten permission from Metro Trains to uses this info on their site. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some of these "reliable fan" sites (Vicsig, victorianrailways.net, PJV, ComRails, and even mine to name a few) that have been granted access to information that Wikipedia editors don't have access to, yet due to the outdated WP:RS this information is not acceptable to be used. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about checking out a street directory. I know the ones for Perth have station distances and maybe ones for Melbourne do as well. Steelkamp (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Melways street directory does not have station distances. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may need to be a reform to the WP:RS...

These so called "fan" sites, many of which put in just as much research as book writers (if not more), may need to be accepted as reliable. While any person can publish their own book, without doing any research, and be accepted as reliable.

Another problem, books are static, as soon as any book about the railways is published, it is instantly outdated. These reliable "fan" sites are constantly updating as changes to the actual railways occurs. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThylacineHunter if you do believe sources such as vicsig and victorian railways are reliable you could request a review for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources if the review deems the source reliable then it will be possible to update fo FL without removing the distances. NotOrrio (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to begin just go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and start a discussion NotOrrio (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor tried something similar a few years back, and they weren't approved then. It is too much hassle trying to deal with Wikipedia politics. If the Australian transport Wikiproject had of existed, maybe we could have created a list of approved reliable sources.

I'm happy to provide SOMEONE ELSE with a list of the trusted "fan" sites (that most rail enthusiasts turn to before trying the actual companies like Metro Trains for info), but I WILL NOT be putting myself through that hassle. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i believe the only way to get to FL status is to remove the distances for now and then re add them once a reliable source is published on the distances. I did a bit of research on it and the only thing i did find were fan maps which do not count as reliable sources NotOrrio (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going from past experience, there may not be a reliable source in the next 30+ years. I'd prefer to keep this as a useable non-feature list, instead of making it a useless feature list. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp just a few things to note

-The opening dates are scattered through out Anderson, Rick (2010). Stopping All Stations (with the excpetion of stations which opened after 2010, which i have added seperate sources for). Sorry for not mentioning earlier

-Anderson, Rick (2010). Stopping All Stations also has the former names for the stations, since the book is used multiple times to source these former names ive just added it at the top of the notes section

-There are other underground sections in Melbourne's rail network such as the tunnel at box hill however those are smaller and less important in comparison to the city loop

Additionally I've fixed the following

1.Formerly Spottiswoode earlier Bayswater and earlier Edom now says:

Formerly

• Spottiswoode
• Bayswater
• Edom

additionally ive used this layout for all stations with multiple former names

2. Although it needs a re check ive fixed most of the source name and replaced it with the proper website name including all the www.metrotrains.com.au sources which now display as "Metro Trains Melbourne" in the source name

3. Internet archives have been fixed so the original link and the archive link are inserting

4.The five metro tunnel stations now display Cranbourne, Pakenham and Sunbury services instead of just metro tunnel

5. There might be more use of "LXRP" but ive replaced all lxrp acroynms in the notes section with "Level Crossing Removal Project"

6.There is the metro train melbourne source for sitances if it can't be considerd reliable as it is a potential leak. distances could be removed all together

7. Lead section grammatical erros have been addressed

8.I've removed the source from MPTG and as a result removed the information backed up by it

9. Images and notes are no longer sortable

I wil fix the rest soon NotOrrio (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fixed everything (there may be a a few small things i didn't fix) NotOrrio (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SounderBruce

Just dropping some notes, but I might conduct a full review later:

• MOS:APOSTROPHE compliance is needed in the citations, especially those for "Victoria's Big Build".
• There seems to be an overreliance on sources from the government (the aforementioned Big Build); consider replacing them with secondary sources.
• Capitalization in "Transportation Connections", "Planned Connections", and "Projected Opening" need to follow sentence case.
• The Heritage and tourist railways section needs to be converted into a table for consistency and beefed up with more sources. As it stands, it's awkwardly pasted on to the end of the long table sections. SounderBruce 23:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

looked through your feedback and fixed the apostrophes, capitalaztion, made the heritage and tourist railways a table & replaced several of the government sources with secondary ones NotOrrio (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2023 (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. ! rowspan="2" |Name becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" | 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. ![[Aircraft railway station|Aircraft]] becomes !scope=row | [[Aircraft railway station|Aircraft]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done NotOrrio (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updates from nominator[edit]

• Added sources for suburbs and zones using the metro trains melbourne sources (not for showgrounds and flemington as they didn't have a metro trains page for some reason
• Added a new paragraph for railway lines NotOrrio (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by[edit]

• I don't know if someones mentioned this already but many of the links within the transport connections column are broken/incorrectly linked/have been copied/pasted incorrectly. I started listing them but I realised a good fraction of this long list are wrong. Transport connection links that are wrong include, but not limited to: Watsonia Westgarth St Albans Seaholme Royal Park Riversdale Ripponlea Ringwood Richmond.
• Is a miles column relevant/necessary for an Australian list?
• I think link rot would rip into this article just purely because of how many references there are, archiving might be necessary. Whilst the refs in the list are fresh, it took me 15 seconds to find a dead mainstream link within a random station article, just a consequence of the constant urban development. -- Idiosincrático (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – for the time being, ping me if there are major changes. Idiosincrático (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and close this nomination. There are two opposes, one of which has been there for months, and it's really hard to tell what has and hasn't been addressed. At this point, the nomination would be better served be being closed and being renominated once all issues are taken care of so it can be reviewed with fresh eyes. --PresN 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [5].[reply]

List of Nansen Refugee Award laureates[edit]

Nominator(s): CT55555(talk) 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria, and I think this is a list of fantastic people from all around the world and makes for interesting content. CT55555(talk) 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nomader[edit]

• Oppose for now until concerns are addressed. The criteria the list currently fails are 1 (Prose), 2 (Lead), and 4 (Structure). I'll address the points below -- I think this is a great start, but it needs some serious work to reach FL level.
  • 1. Prose: The article includes thoughts that are a bit off on formatting, particularly in the "award ceremony" section (the "In 2012" sentence as an example doesn't include a verb and isn't actually a sentence). This leads into the lead issues in the next bullet.
  • 2. Lead: FLs should have well-developed lead sections that clearly define the scope and inclusion criteria. An example of an award article that I think could be a good direction to emulate would be the Richard Dawkins Award or the Gabor Medal, both of which clearly give the criteria (or lack thereof) for the award in the lead and give context around its history and creation.
    • A list like this should really not have those other sections of prose -- I think they could be easily merged into the lead in an engaging way that would summarize the list nicely.
  • 4. Structure: The lists are unfortunately not sortable (see Help:Sorting or copy a format from another similar award list to see how to do it best). The regional laureates and annual laureates lists contain different columns for no seemingly particular reason -- I think consistency would work better here (although I think the headers make sense). It might make sense to borrow from those other examples that I showed which included a citation or summary of their work or why they were awarded (I just found an example for the 2021 laureate with a little searching here: [6]).

Just a note that I'm also submitting my review to the Wikicup. I think there's a lot of work to be done -- it's doable, but it'll be a bit of a lift. Ping me if you have any questions and I'll be happy to help answer them! Nomader (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the way you've delivered the feedback, because that is actionable and gives me a path forward to improving the article further. I will try to make the improvements and if I do so, I will ping you again and ask you to reconsider the improved version. CT55555(talk) 16:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, please do! I once accidentally swapped all of my references in a list with over 50 of them and had to do a comprehensive spotcheck of them in an FLC, having issues that can be resolved happens all the time. Let me know if you have any questions as you're going through the page again. Nomader (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken action regarding each piece of helpful feedback that you have provided and I wonder if you would be willing to reappraise the list now? CT55555(talk) 21:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this! Will take a look in the next couple of days, thanks for the flag here! Nomader (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming back to this based on @CT55555:'s response above. This is definitely an improvement in a number of ways, but it still needs some work. I've listed below where I think it can be improved still:

• 2. Lead:
  • Although it's great that the prose has been condensed into a summary style in the lead, I think there's still a lot of context missing that I mentioned above. Why was the award initially established? Again, I think examples like the Richard Dawkins Award and to a lesser extent, the Gabor Medal show examples of how to approach this.
  • I think that the sentences appear a bit out of order -- maybe the nomenclature of the award could be added after the lead sentence somewhere along with an expansion of the award's history?
• 3. Comprehensiveness:
  • I didn't bring this up specifically as a criteria that needed improvement before, but there's no context on why certain people received the award -- and I think that the list should include it (other similar awards like the Buchanan Medal, Crafoord Prize, and the Foot in Mouth Award all include this context). I've done some research and found press releases about each award member through Google (e.g., [7]), but I haven't found official citations that have gone along with it. I like the way the Richard Dawkins Award has a notes section which clarifies in a footnote that "This column broadly outlines the work and views of the recipient" because there is no official citation, and I think that style could be emulated here broadly.\
• 4: Structure:
  • The lists are *much* better overall in terms of structure, thanks for adding sorting to it. Could you also make the images a larger size, similar to the other lists I've cited above? From a WP:ACCESS perspective, I'm concerned that they may not be viewable for the average person.
  • Images should also include ALT text per WP:ALT.

It's on the right track, but still has a good amount of work ahead of it so I'm still an oppose !vote for now. Ping me when you'd like me to take another look and I'll be happy to review! Nomader (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the actionable feedback. I've improved the lead, I've made the images larger, I've started adding rationales, have more to do, including the alt text. I'll ping you once I finish those tasks. CT55555(talk) 02:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All images now have ALT text. Rationales are still underway. CT55555(talk) 02:06, 22 March 2023 (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.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 22:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for helping me make this more accessible! I have addressed this issue in both tables. Action on other feedback is ongoing. CT55555(talk) 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and close this nomination. The oppose has been there for months without address or further review, and in looking at the list I see the lead is still anemic, while most of the "Office held, or rationale" column is empty leading to a table that is mostly blank space. --PresN 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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