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, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Women's Premier League (cricket) seasons and results[edit]

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 07:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well-organized list about a noteworthy topic. Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 07:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the top of this page, "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• You have opened a second nomination before your first has had even a single comment. Please withdraw one or the other -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll withdraw this one for now. Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 10:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WP:FLC director and delegates: - user is withdrawing this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2024 (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• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of general elections in Botswana[edit]

Nominator(s): ^48JCLTalk 01:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after reading all the criteria, I think this page is ready to become a featured list, based on the requirements. Also, this page is a vital article to Botswana, so it would be really great if this became featured, since the nation is not relevant for anything other than its democracy; and I don’t think most Botswana articles relating to democracy have much in it, other than maybe 2014 Botswana general election If not, I will continue improving this article. Hey in fact, this article might not need to exist, but no matter what, I will try to get this article as far as possible. There are, I think around 40 references, so this article is well-cited, in my opinion. ^48JCLTalk 01:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

• The most immediate thing is that the article's lead doesn't need its own subheading ("overview") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed that ^48JCLTalk 14:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824[edit]

There is quite a bit that can be improved, so we'll have to do this in batches:

• There is a lot of information present in the table. Can you eliminate some of the columns that aren't as important? e.g. the exact number of votes won doesn't seem to be very important and can be eliminated. Even the vote share% isn't important since the number of seats won is what determines the governing party. Done
• The row for the upcoming election can be eliminated, until the results are in.not done
• Some of the columns need grouping (by winner, runner up). See Elections in India#History of Lok Sabha elections for how to do that. Done
• Pipe the various election wikilinks in the table to only show the election year. Done
• Replace the word "rule" with "govern" everywhere relevant in the lead. Done
• Explain in the lead how the president is selected after the results for the individual constituencies are announced. Done

That's it for now. Ping me when you've done these and I can give you more suggestions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did most however I would like to keep the 2024 general election tab- also, for some reason the article feels empty now. 48JCL (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 48JCL (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels empty - Yes, but cleaner. You don't want to overwhelm the reader with excessive information. I'll add the next batch of suggestions soon. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch of suggestions:

• You have a lot of short paragraphs in the lead. Merge them into 2 (or at most 3) paragraphs.Done
• If voter turnout % is available for most/all the elections, then that would be a good data point to add to the table.Done
• I'd suggest that you move all the refs to their own cell at the end of each row, since there are so many of them for each election.Done
• Replace TBD with a shortish phrase which indicates that the 2024 election is set for the future.Done
• Add some information to the lead about the changes in the election before and after independence.Kinda done ig
• I'd suggest that you replace "Unknown" for the 1961 election with "NA", if that's the right phrase to use. Done

Again, ping me when you are done with these. I'll be off-wiki for a while, so hopefully another reviewer can help you improve this list until then.-MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 there aren’t really many differences because universal suffrage was adopted before their independence in 1966 48JCL (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Each president is entitled to two" to "Each president is limited to two".
• It isn't clear why "seats available for election" is 57 for the 2019 election, while total seats is 65 (in the image). Add an explanation in the lead (or elsewhere, if that works better).
• "However, recent elections have shown that support for the BDP is declining, and opposition parties have started getting more support." You can remove the second part of the sentence (since it is a corollary to the first).
• "only 29.4% of people surveyed": I don't think you should use the word "only" here, since it is the larger of the two numbers in the sentence.
• Not a deal-breaker, but would it be possible to find enough references to start the article about the "European Advisory Council"?
• Reorder the refs for the 1969 election so that they are in ascending order. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

• Why does the number of seats won by the winner, runner-up and other parties not add up to the total number of seats available for the last two elections.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because of appointed and ex officio members. I’d love to add a footnote but I don’t know how to make it say [b] 48JCL (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude 48JCL (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ight fixed it 48JCL (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

• "being the Botswana Democratic Party" - I think "namely the Botswana Democratic Party" would be better EnglishDone
• "It has had 13 formal" => "The country has had 13 formal"Done
• Remove the space between the comma and the reference after 1961 and after "5 years"Done
• Also, "5 years" should be "five years"
• "two 5-year terms." => "two five-year terms."Done
• Also, no need to say "former president" unless he is the current one, as that is obviousDone
• BDP should be linked just once in the lead, not three timesDone
• also, put BDP in brackets after the first useDone
• Also, why did the earlier ones not follow it? Did they just ignore it? Or did it in fact not exist yet?Done
• "showed that alone 29.4% of people" => "showed that only 29.4% of people"Done
• "would vote for a main opposition party, the UDC" - write the name in full and then put the abbreviation in bracketsDone
• You write runner-up both with and without a hyphen, pretty sure it should always have a hyphenDone
• NA should probably be n/aDone
• Put the footnotes above the mapsDone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would it be possible for you to support? 48JCL talk 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude 48JCL talk 20:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what else? 48JCL (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude 48JCL (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

• There's a space between the full stop and ref 7Done
• "Quett Masire created " - when was this and who was Quett Masire? This needs more context.Done
• "would vote for a main opposition party, the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) if elections" - need a comma after (UDC)Done
• "In Botswana, the president of Botswana is selected" - first two words aren't needed. The president of Botswana is obviously select in Botswana rather than any other country Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Corrected. 48JCL 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments[edit]

• There's no reason at all for the first sentence to be in boldDone
• "then called the Bechuanaland Democratic Party" => "previously called the Bechuanaland Democratic Party"Done
• "Each president is entitled to two five-year terms, and Quett Masire, the second president" => "Each president is entitled to two five-year terms; Quett Masire, the second president"Done
• "Opinion polls in 2022 conducted by Afrobarometer showed that only 29.4% of people surveyed" => "Opinion polls in 2022 conducted by Afrobarometer showed that 29.4% of people surveyed"Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  alright, got more? 48JCL (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This feels like peer review now lol 48JCL (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 May 2024 (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" |Election becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" |Election. 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. |[[1961 Bechuanaland general election|1961]] becomes !scope=row |[[1961 Bechuanaland general election|1961]]. 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 20:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I’ll get to work on that. 48JCL 23:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN Is it good now? 48JCL 01:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple column headers were missing scopes, but I fixed it. --PresN 02:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS[edit]

• "is a landlocked country located in Southern Africa" → "located" is unnecessary, just simplify to "country in Southern Africa"Done
• "on September 30 1966" → missing comma after dateDone
• "Each president is entitled to two five-year terms" → I would recommend merging this sentence with the one that comes after itDone
• "Botswana,[10] created Botswana’s term limit[11] in 1997.[12]" → moving the references to the end of the sentence would make it far more readableDone
• "The first election in Botswana that adopted universal suffrage" → presumably the country adopted universal suffrage and then had the election, rather than the election itself having universal suffrageDone
• Presumably the BDP was called the Beuchanaland Democratic Party before the name change to Botswana? Also would be helpful to have something telling when that name change took place.Done
• "Every single election" → "Every election"Done
• "by the Botswana Democratic Party" → can abbreviate to BDP since you've already defined the abbreviation and used it in the first paragraphDone
• "recent elections have start to show" → "have started to show" or just "have shown"Done
• "Despite this, ahead of the 2024 election, they still hold 70% of all seats in the Parliament" → I know you're talking about the BDP, but "they" is still ambiguous here since the last thing you talked about was the opposition parties, not the BDPDone
• Not convinced that the line of prose in "Summary" is neededRemoved
• A key for the parties in the table would be helpful (especially since some aren't mentioned/defined in the prose
• Reference formatting could also use some cleanupDone

That's what I've got on first look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS All issues addressed. 48JCL 01:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I withdraw my nom?

• 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list I am hoping for enough feedback to get this promoted and learn how to format other elements of this set of list. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

• Please take a look at PresN's standard comments about table accessibility here.
  • I feel a bit lost. Are you saying that I need to do something about the first column?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, take a look at MOS:CONTRAST. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I need to find a co-nominator who knows how to do tables. Honestly, I usually ask for help with tables. I can sort of copy one that is similar to mine, but I don't usually try to do these on my own.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a long page. ChrisTheDude's query below in clear English was more easily understood. I believe I have addressed this directive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

• "List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year is a list of" - no article titled "List of...." should start by restating the literal title or using the wording "this is a list of". Find a way to write a more engaging opening
  • I took a stab at that issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article still starts with "This is a list"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Football" isn't linked until something like the fifth use of the word. I would also suggest writing "American football" in full on the first usage, for the benefit of those of us who call a different sport "football"
  • I have linked college football and American football. It seems that no Canadian players of Canadian football are listed. If I find any Canadian players, I will change to Gridiron football.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "selected as the most outstanding of the annual Football Academic All-America selections." - what is/are "the annual Football Academic All-America selections"? Without any context/explanation, this is meaningless
  • I have added that selections are based on academics and athletic performance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT" - what do all these codes mean?
  • Linked-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't see any compelling reason for the district names to be written in all capitals
  • Fixed-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I found the explanation of the award extremely impenetrable and confusing. You start off by saying there were two divisions for a time before explaining what the award actually is, then you say what it is, then you jump back to talking about the two divisions. You say "Currently, each team selects Academic All-District honorees in eight geographic districts" - who are this team that do the selecting? Also, you set out how a winner is chosen for each district but then don't really give any explanation how we get from that to a single winner.
  • Any better now?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "From 1996 to 2011 one winner each was chosen from both the College and University Divisions" - the table says it was until 2010
  • The transition was the 2010-11 academic year. Some sports teams were named in 2010 and some in 2011. Football is a fall sport so 2010 is correct.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Most recently, effective with the 2018–19 school year, the College Division was split, with NAIA members now receiving their own set of awards" - there's still only one winner in that column for all subsequent years.......?
  • The split was effective for every sport. For most sports the only thing other than Division I, Division II and Division III is NAIA. For some sorts there are other sets of competitions. I will change this to reflect that for football it was a transition rather than a split.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the split was suppose to separate out Two-Year College, Canadian Institutions and any other institution not affiliated with the NCAA or NAIA. Canada seems to have been folded into the districts for the other 4 sets of awards for most sports. I think only the At-large awards for sports other than the main 5 for each sex have a 5th category.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is there an "other footnotes" section which is completely empty?
  • Fixed-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would reiterate the comment above about colours/contrast. Some of the names are literally unreadable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken a run at the colours/contrast. Let me know of any specific remaining colors-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @ChrisTheDude:, I think I have addressed your concerns.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments[edit]

• "Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year are [plural] the annual most outstanding singular college football athlete [singular]" - this doesn't make grammatical sense
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "For the Division I team" - what's the "Division I team"? Or for that matter, Division I?
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "From 1996 to 2010 this team selection process was held separately for the College and University Division" => "From 1996 to 2010 this team selection process was held separately for the College and University Divisions"
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "However, Football has incorporated" - football is not a proper noun so doesn't need a capital letter
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "men's and women's at-large teams" - what is an "at-large team"?
  • Clarified.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "One of these twelve sport-by-sport Academic All-Americans of the year is selected as the Academic All-America Team Members" - how can one person (singular) be selected as the team members (plural)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral by Gonzo_fan2007[edit]

• Comment I am generally opposed to the overuse of table coloring to convey non-essential information. This list, imho, takes this to an extreme, presenting color schemes (specifically college sports team colors) that are not notable to almost all readers. I am suspect of any decorative coloring in tables, even on the table header, but would oppose this list outright based on the current overuse of colors. I am sticking to just a comment for now, because I don't plan on performing a full review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I am not aware of any polling that team colors are not notable to readers. However, I do have life experience that many sports fans confuse teams when solely refered to by name. Furthermore, Wikipedia:COLOR seems to support alternate referents to teams where it says "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information". This indicates that school name and school color could jointly convey the team information. Most sports fans feel very strongly about their school colors. Sometimes it is a strategic element of the game to have all the fans attend wearing school colors. In my experience I have told people that I am a Michigan Wolverines men's basketball and had them tell me about the legend of Tom Izzo. I have had people say they saw the game last night on a night when Michigan did not play. To clarify what team I root for I say we are blue and they are green. Some people mix up all the Michigan schools (Michigan Tech, Michigan State, Michigan, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Northern Michigan, Eastern Michigan), but if you tell them the color it is a second way to communicate the information. I have trouble keeping track of the Texas schools myself. Also all the Cal State -- XXX schools. Additionally most list that you might see are only NCAA Division I, but in this case there is much more room for confusion because this list incorporates almost all collegiate sports divisions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the tables need to be sortable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I am trying to get help with the sortability at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Sortable_tables.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, sortable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Further color on team colors for athletics. On WP we place a high priority on affiliating players and teams with team colors in general. E.g. every sports team has clear presentation of its official colors. This is very abnormal for business and commerce in general. Try to find official colors on pages like Interpol, United Nations or any Fortune 500 company like McDonald's or Apple Inc.. In non-athletic business, official colors are not a thing. For athletics they are. Any bio of a player who is currently affiliate with a team has all kinds of automation presenting the official colors of this automation. Thus, whereas in general WP:FL may frown on highly colored list tables, affiliation of players and team is its own genre on WP. Presumably we do this not because affiliation is "non-essential information". Presumably this is a high priority interest to our readers. This list is attempting to uphold the broad consensus on WP that in athletics affiliation is preferably presented in prose and in color.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Further commmentary on why color for this list is appropriate: Yes ((Infobox basketball biography)) and ((Infobox NFL biography)) are examples of very widely used templates used in WP:BLPs of current athletes. Other sports have similarly popular templates with equally prominent color usage. In general, team affiliation is considered a piece of information of extremely high encyclopedic importance. When a player is in the news regarding a trade or a signing, it is often highly contentious with edit warring and special sets of rules. Often page protection has to be invoked. We have seemed to condition the readers to assess team affiliation with both text and color presentation of the team affiliation. This is broadly done and commonly accepted across all sports on wikipedia. Others who spend a lot of time on sports might be able to give you more "color" (semi intentional pun) on this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID needs to be followed.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Half of the names don't have ((sortname)) (first table the College Division Winner column) and there are some random ones missing in the second table.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I am opposing primarily based on the color and WP:FLCR 3c. MOS:COLOR states: Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers. - this table fails this. There are so many different colors for the text, you can't identify a link. From an accessibility side, some of the text colors on top of background colors are difficult to read: Susquehanna and Eastern New Mexico particularly. Regarding the use of color, it should be complementary. The use of team colors can be beneficial in a lot of ways. As example would be Buccaneers-Packers rivalry, the table at the end has coloring to show who won and lost, who led a specific decade, etc. We also utilize coloring to better identify a specific team, like the infobox of Green Bay Packers or the ((Green Bay Packers)) template. This is minimal, but complementary use of color. What we have here is a ridiculous number of different schools and colorschemes. The really bad part is that there are so many different colors, that they can't be easily differentiated. Dartmouth, Oregon, Northwest Missouri, Illinois Wesleyan, Ark Tech, and Slippery Rock all have green background, with subtle differences in shade, with white text. From a quick pass, I can't differentiate the schools from each other, so what is the point of the colors? It doesn't help the reader at all. There are countless other examples of almost identical color schemes. Since the color serves no purpose, it is purely decorative (there is something like 73 different schools on this page, each with its own colors). Weighing the decorative nature of the coloring versus the current legibility, for me, it is detrimental the overall ability to read and understand the table. Colors can definitely be helpful, differentiating between two things, highlighting different awards won by people in a table, etc, but not like this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FLCR, I am a bit confused on this objection.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:COLOR, I have been pondering this one along several dimensions. First, I confess to have often used general colors when colors did populate well or a tertiary school color was necessary for better contrast. I.e., rather than getting the exact hex color shade for a school for red, blue, gold, etc. I just used that word. Thus, many schools have one official hex and one general color for their color combinations. Second, I really contest whether it is useless to have a broad array of colors rather than a handful. I think the best format for the colors can be seen in the 2018–19_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Rankings section of this article. I know this is not a list article, but it is the inspiration for my current vision of the page. The colors are not decorative. They ARE helpful to the reader. There are more than a dozen color schemes there with half of them being shades of red, scarlett and maroon. Colors can be used to identify a specific team even if more than a few different colors exist. Note that the section I am pointing to on that page uses the two colors as the background and cell padding. The text is usually black or white. I think that would be the best format for this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TonyTheTiger I think the single color strip, albeit still superficial and not extremely helpful, would at least alleviate my primary concern. I would still oppose with the secondary color included as you have in your sandbox. One question, I understand the bolding of the names, but why are the schools bolded? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the bolded schools artifact from the prior format, which I believe predated my involvement with the school color element.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still think the colors are distracting and superficial. That said, I have stricken my oppose and will remain neutral. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 3 April 2024 (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.
  • I did this on March 23 with the other batch of changes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Ignoring how the mix of colors is garish, Illinois College, MIT, and Colorado Mines fail accessibility standards for color contrast. You can check colors at [4], but in general gray text on a color is unreadable to people with poor or reduced eyesight. Please swap those text to white.
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I got it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: Not to beat a dead horse too much here, but the colors here are plainly unacceptable. MOS:COLOR plainly states that pages should meet at least WCAG AA standards, which require a 4.5:1 contrast ratio between normal text and the background. Some glaring examples: Valdosta State has #000000 text on #CC0000 background, which has a contrast ratio of 3.56:1. Carnegie Mellon has #000000 on #990000, which is a ratio of 2.35:1. Susquehanna: #3366CC on #651C32 for 2.21:1. These are just the obvious examples; it's not fair to expect reviewers to check all of the color combinations. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @MPGuy2824, ChrisTheDude, Gonzo fan2007, and RunningTiger123:, I have finished revising the colors with regard to contrast in the first of the tables ("Two-division era (1987–2010)") by reviewing Module:College color and commenting in the color cell with the contrast number for any non-white text color. I was pondering various avenues for revision until recent discussions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Trying_to_understand_table_stylings with User:Redrose64 gave me better understanding of ((CollegePrimaryStyle)) and ((NCAA color cell)). I am assuming the background is the primary color and am assessing cell-by-cell whether a non-white secondary color has sufficient contrast. I will get to the other tables within a couple of days unless this first table continues to have a negative consensus.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please consider using this format:

That way all contrast issues are avoided and links can be their normal color. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:MPGuy2824, I have reformatted as you suggest for the top two tables. It looks clean. I'll get the bottom table soon. I am wondering, if each box could also get the secondary color?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There seem to be a lot of templates in Template:Sports color templates. See if one of them works. I suspect it would be too cluttered with color though if you add the secondary colors too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thoughts?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wait. That is only pulling a second color that may be the secondary color. In 2 of the four cases it is pulling something other than the secondary color. More tinkering to come.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year test shows that ((CollegeSecondaryStyle)) and ((CollegeSecondaryHex))} will pull the secondary color, unless if the secondary color is white, there is a good chance you will pull black (see Denison and Dartmouth, while Texas & AM is OK).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• N.B. I have added some images. Formatting advice is welcome.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should run IABot on the list. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for over two months without any support, and I'm going to need to close it to keep the queue moving. Feel free to renominate it in the future. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:PresN, What would I need to do to pursue renomination?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 17 May 2024 (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) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

96th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): PrinceofPunjab^TALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. It followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 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 ceremonies were written. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment – While it's not required for similar articles to use the same format, this article currently does not use the same format as previous years (even though the nomination suggests it does). Sections are in a different order, and the winners and nominees section in particular needs to be rewritten to actually focus on key points instead of the various trivia thrown in there haphazardly. A more thorough proofreading might be in order. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PrinceofPunjab: Any comments on this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @RunningTiger123 After making some edits, I believe that article is now following the format more closely to the prior ceremonies than when your comment was made. On Trivial section, I am open to editing the stuff you think is more trivial for the general reader. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll come back for a full review later, but I would suggest rewriting the trivia section to focus on items that are firsts (or maybe seconds/thirds if they aren't super contrived) or records. For instance, Scorsese being the oldest nominee for Best Director is an actual record, but six couples received nominations that they shared together in their respective categories is just a random fact. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promised a full review, so here's one now.

• No source in either the infobox or the body for the producers or runtime

Y Done.

• Network should probably just be ABC (ABC.com and the ABC app are just different ways to watch the main network, as far as I know)

Y Done.

• "The films which went home with one award each include..." – awkward wording

Y Done.

• "An American Sign Language livestream was broadcast..." – probably can just go in the body instead of the lead

Y Done.

• As noted before, the trivia in the "Winners and nominees" section should be cleaned up
• Governors Awards should go after the main awards – this matches previous years (which, while not strictly required, is more convenient for readers)

Y Done.

• • In general, the "In Memoriam" section also goes later

Y Done.

• Use lighter shades of gold for the award headings to meet MOS:COLOR (see colors used in previous year)

Y Done.

• I'm conflicted as to whether the names listed all at once at the end of the "In Memoriam" section should be included. It's really hard to parse the sea of links and if they weren't notable enough to get their own moment, they may not be notable enough to be listed here. Would be curious to know what other reviewers think.
• "Pre-ceremony information" can just be "Ceremony information", again for consistency

Y Done.

• • Move the introductory paragraphs under "Ceremony" up to this section

Y Done.

• "For the last two awards" – suggest "years" instead of "awards" to make clear it is not referring to award categories

Y Done.

• "underrepresented" and "cognitive or physical disabilities" – no need to quote these common terms (MOS:DOUBT)

Y Done.

• "the Barbenheimer phenomenon" – remove italics

Y Done.

• The whole paragraph about Messi the Dog feels a bit excessive. If it's relevant, it can probably be discussed in the "Reception" section. Speaking of which...
• I really like the way the "Reception" section is written; I actually get a sense of what parts people liked and didn't like and what made this year's ceremony unique. Some small quibbles:
  • "The highlights of the ceremony are considered by many to be" → "Highlights in reviews included" (more neutral)

Y Done.

• • "respective wins of Japanese films Godzilla Minus One and The Boy and the Heron" – not convinced that "some people liked the winners" is relevant to ceremony reception, that's almost always true

Y Done.

• • "in 18–49 demo rating" → "among adults ages 18–49" (less jargon)

Y Done.

• • "from 4.03 rating of last year's ceremony" → "from the 4.03 rating of the previous year's ceremony"

Y Done.

• • "is so far the largest viewership" → "set the largest viewership" (won't fall out of date)

Y Done.

• • "post-COVID-19 pandemic era" → "post–COVID-19 pandemic era" (MOS:PREFIXDASH)

Y Done.

If you need help with any of this, I suggest reaching out to Birdienest81 – he's worked on a fair few of these lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 I have edited the article according to almost all of the suggestions by you. I will address the other points soon. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 15:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrinceofPunjab:, @RunningTiger123:: It seems that Princeof Pujab decided to nominate the list for featured list. Unfortunately, the list as it is right would definitely not pass FLC criteria. Among the many issues, the facts sections reads like a trivia list, there are questionable sources, and some sections could be combined together. Usually, I wait until the Emmy Awards are given out before I nominate the ceremony for FLC. If you don't mind, I'm probably, going to do a full rewrite of the ceremony on a sandbox and make it more in line with other Oscar ceremony lists that have featured list status. Right now, this certainly would not pass.

Please note, I am down one computer and don't have access to the one that is working at the moment. So it may take some time to do a full rewrite. Birdienest81talk 08:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: While I agree the list needs work as it currently stands, the implication that you specifically need to do a rewrite (on a separate page) reads a bit like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Maybe it would be better to work on the existing article with PrinceofPunjab in mainspace instead of pursuing a full rewrite in a user sandbox? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. While I appreciate the concerted efforts to maintain consistency among these Academy Awards articles, it may be to their detriment as these keep growing in coverage. The paragraphs for this one in particular have excessive parabreaks in the "Winners and nominees" and "Ceremony information" sections, which have several flow issues and could benefit from another c/e. I suggest adjusting the first para in the lead from "The 96th Academy Awards ceremony, which was presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)," to "The 96th Academy Awards ceremony, presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)," and I also suggest adding before Kimmel: "The ceremony was directed by Hamish Hamilton." Other than that, I think it may be having an over-reliance on notes, such as in the lead for Kimmel's prior hosting duties and for the Governor Awards' prior date, which could be converted into prose text. There are also plenty of references that would benefit from links to their websites. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I'm puzzled that many images have alt text solely consisting of a full stop. Only the Kimmel image has any alt text more descriptive than that. I strongly recommend adding more descriptive alt text to the rest of the images in the listicle, including those that are grouped together by the ((multiple image)) template; see its documentation for details on adding alt text to such groups of images.

Other than that, all seems good:

• All images except for one are appropriately licensed for either PD or CC; the sole exception—the poster for the ceremony—has a valid fair-use rationale.
• All images are of good quality and contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
• Sources check out for each image.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for over two months without any support, and I'm going to need to close it to keep the queue moving. Feel free to renominate it in the future. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (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) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

List of Indianapolis 500 pole-sitters[edit]

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked this list for the past ten months so that it is fully referenced, verifiable and more accessible. Feedback will be taken into account and acted on as fast as possible. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC

I would suggest the following:

• Paraphrase the text in each of the sub-sections within the "Procedure" section to a few sentences each.
• Eliminate the "By driver nationality", "By team", "By car make", "By engine manufacturer" and "By tire make" sections. These are not as relevant.
• Replace N/A in the tire column with Unk for Unknown.
• The year of the race is important, not the particular date. You could remove that column completely. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Z1720[edit]

No issues with licences, alt text used, no px used.

The image's caption in the infobox: The sticker is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and I am not sure why this person is important in the context of this article. Perhaps this image should be of the current pole-sitter, or perhaps an image that showcases a pole-sitter in action? Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for a couple months without any supports, and has multiple comments without any response from the nominator after several weeks. In order to keep the FLC queue moving, I'm going to close it; feel free to renominate in the future. --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (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.