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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of perissodactyls[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 22:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another animal list! Having made lists for the order Carnivora (carnivorans/felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds), aka "meat-eaters", and Artiodactyla (artiodactyls/cervids/suines/bovids), aka "hooved animals that aren't horses", we now move on to the order Perissodactyla, aka "hooved animals that are horses (and tapirs, and rhinos)". Which... is a much smaller order: Artiodactyla has ~350 extant animals, and Carnivora ~300, but Perissodactyla only has 18. As a result, instead of having lists for each of the three Families (horses, tapirs, and rhinos) plus a capstone list of genera like for the previous two orders, here we just have one list of species, which follows the pattern of prior "species" FLs. It also means that, even combined, it's still shorter than most of the Family lists. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment is on the lead, only the last sentence of which has a specific citation. Is the rest sourced to the sources listed at the bottom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Yes, the rest is a summary of the (cited) stuff in the tables; that last sentence is the only thing unique to the lead so it got a cite. --PresN 13:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AryKun[edit]

• "List of odd-toed ungulates" should probably be created as a redirect to here.
• Link "vestigial" and "posteriorly"
• "the Rhinocerotidae and Tapiridae families" → "the families Rhinocerotidae and Tapiridae"
• "the Equidae family" → " The family Equidae"
• Those are all the comments I have, otherwise excellent work. AryKun (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AryKun: All done, thanks! --PresN 15:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I came up with two very minor points on a last read through. Maybe "posteriorly" could be replaced with "backwards" to make more understandable to a general audience, and "biomes" could be linked? AryKun (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AryKun: Done. --PresN 16:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support AryKun (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviews[edit]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I don't think there's any problem here with overlapping material from Odd-toed ungulate.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is good. The (made-to-order) table coding seems fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look strong throughout, and the links are all in working order. Everything looks like a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

• The lead image can take ALT text
• File:იავური მარტორქა.jpg — I am not sure how this one is cc-by-sa-4.0. This appears to be the source, which says the author to be "Alain Compost". Now, I cannot confirm if he is same as the user who has uploaded that image on the commons. Can you advise?

Did not check any maps. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Added alt text and replaced that image, I'm suspicious of it as well. --PresN 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Pass. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 30 January 2022 (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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of accolades received by Dunkirk[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkirk is a 2017 war epic film written, co-produced, and directed Christopher Nolan. Its ensemble cast includes Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, James D'Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance and Tom Hardy. The film depicts the Dunkirk evacuation of World War II through the perspectives of the land, sea, and air. The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards including Best Picture at the 2018 ceremony and won three awards. This is my sixth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, 1917, The Shape of Water, and Slumdog Millionaire. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81talk 08:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

The only images is appropriately licenced (File:Christopher Nolan, London, 2013 (crop).jpg), and has ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2021 (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. --PresN 02:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: - Done: Added table caption to the top of the table for accessibility.

--Birdienest81talk 10:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Some Dude From North Carolina[edit]

• All titles should be in italics, including those in citations (ex. 'Dunkirk' → Dunkirk) (MOS:CONFORMTITLE). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: - Done: I have italicized all film titles accordingly.

--Birdienest81talk 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Some Dude From North Carolina: as it was actually that user who raised the above point :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Doing soon. Aza24 (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed: [3]

Formatting

• Ref 3 missing access date
• Linking of news sites is inconsistent throughout, either a) link everytime, b) link just the first time or c) link not at all
• Where are you getting "pp. 6" in ref 18?
• Formatting for ref 23 is different than the other refs?
• I would also give the Catalan name for ref 44 like you do with the Russian in ref 46
• Looks good otherwise

Reliability

• No issues as far as I could see – Aza24 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

• Checked a few, no issues – Aza24 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: - Done: I have fixed the sources based on the comments you posted.

--Birdienest81talk 10:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

This is my first review of an FLC in many, many years. It looks good, almost ready to go. Just some pointers.

• " Lee Smith was responsible for the editing, and Alex Gibson, Richard King, Gregg Landaker, Gary A. Rizzo, and Mark Weingarten were responsible for the sound effects." Perhaps try to vary the structure of the second part of the sentence to avoid the repetitive "x was responsible for this, y was responsible for that".
• "Dunkirk grossed $525 million on a $100 million budget." ((nbsp)) needed for $525 million and $100 million.
• "Dunkirk received three nominations at the 75th Golden Globe Awards for Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Director for Nolan, and Best Original Score for Zimmer." Maybe lose "Nolan" in this sentence, as it has already been established in the bit about Oscars that the Best Director nod is for Nolan. FrB.TG (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - Done I've fixed everything you mentioned in the comments. I've credited Hans Zimmer as composer because I mentioned him that he was nominated for a Golden Globe in the second paragraph. It also enabled me to make variation with the sentences.

--Birdienest81talk 09:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Amazing, artful film; really deserved its accolades. And looks like a neat FLC! GeraldWL 16:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: - Done: I addressed all the comments and made the appropriate corrections based on them. The only thing I did not change was to refs 26, 51, and 52 because those were news articles and the template does not work for those webpages.

--Birdienest81talk 11:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see I see, no problems with those refs. It looks all good now, so you earned another support. Btw if you're interested, I have an FLC myself. GeraldWL 12:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 30 January 2022 (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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Little Walter discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After several discographies for guitarists, I thought it was time for a harmonica player. Little Walter was a true innovator and one of, if not the most famous blues harpist of all. Most of his recordings were for the Checker/Chess labels, so his discography is relatively straightforward and benefits from some excellent sources. It's a relatively new article, but the former discography section in his WP bio didn't have problems. Enjoy. Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

Thanks, I think I've addressed your concerns. Let me know if I missed something. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was just waiting for Chris's comments to be resolved. With that being done, I support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment

• Re Kavyansh's second point, I found this image. It's not the greatest, but it could be added so that there isn't no image at all. Up to you really, it's not a deal-breaker for me either way..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned to Kavyansh above, it's not very good quality. I'll keep looking. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  His foundation website has a few photos,[6] but most look similar to those used in box set booklets that indicate "courtesy of" various photographers and MCA/Chess. A fansite also has a number of photos that are attributed to various photographers,[7] which I assume means they aren't in the public domain. But maybe something will turn up. Thanks for your comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more comment :-)

• All of Walter's hits up to and including "Who" charted when Billboard published separate jukebox and sales charts. All of the chart positions listed are for the jukebox chart - he was less successful on the sales chart. Is it worth adding a footnote to confirm exactly which chart the positions relate to? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whitburn appears to list whichever of the three is highest (juke box, best sellers, or jockeys) for "Peak Pos" and in Walter's case, that happens to be juke box for all of his singles up to "Who". I'll add an efn to clarify this for his solo records, but those with Muddy Waters are split between juke box and sellers (and one jockey). To try to list all three would overcomplicate the table and just picking one chart would leave some singles out. Maybe an efn with "Except for "Close to You", singles with Muddy Waters reflect the highest position on one the three Billboard R&B charts ("Juke Box", "Best Sellers", or "Jockeys") in use at the time. For "Close to You", the consolidated "Hot R&B Sides" is used." Would that work? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds reasonable :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Added. Thanks again. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

• This may sound silly, but I think sideman is worthy linking. I was not familiar with the word, although I could guess its meaning from context, but I'd think other readers may want further clarification as well so a link would be beneficial. I'd link it in the lead and the list.
• I would also link electric blues and Grammy Award for Best Historical Album.
• Since harmonica is linked in the lead, it should be linked in the list for consistency.

My comments are very nitpick-y so apologies for that. Once they have all been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. It would be great to see Little Walter being represented in Wikipedia's featured content. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try to stay away from too much blue in the lead, but if it helps clarify terms for the average reader, I've linked them. Thanks for your comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Source reliability and formatting both look strong throughout, and no issues were identified by the link-checker tool. This is a pass for me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Interesting person; never knew harmonica is more complex than it looks. I also have a discography FLC if you're interested.

Aaand all comments resolved, so support. Marvelous work! GeraldWL 17:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [8].[reply]

List of Italy national football team hat-tricks[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus 22:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In July, it was suggested by TheSandDoctor to me to create a FL nomation in this peer review. This article has a photo, has a good lead, is understable, the content is sourced, it has never had any edit war recently. Before nominating it, I read the criterias (I didn't do it in my previous nominations) Dr Salvus 22:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2021 (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. ! Player becomes !scope=col | Player.
• 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. | ((sortname|Pietro|Lana))||[[Exhibition game|Friendly]] ... becomes !scope=row | ((sortname|Pietro|Lana)) <line break> | [[Exhibition game|Friendly]]....
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*:@PresN I've done what you've said except for the last indication because the line breaks don't work well. This is the table with the changes you've suggested.

Hat-tricks scored by Italy national football team

Player	Competition	Against	Venue	Result	Goals	Date	Ref(s)
Pietro Lana <line break> |Friendly	France	Arena Civica, Milan	6–2	3	15 May 1910	[1]

1. ^ "Italy v France football match, 15 May 1910". eu-football.info. 15 May 1910.

Dr Salvus 22:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: - you haven't done it quite right. It need to be like this:

Hat-tricks scored by Italy national football team

Player	Competition	Against	Venue	Result	Goals	Date	Ref(s)
Pietro Lana	Friendly	France	Arena Civica, Milan	6–2	3	15 May 1910	[1]

Hope that helps! - ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @ChrisTheDude. @PresN  Done Dr Salvus 14:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN Anything? Dr Salvus 18:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Article meets criteria, support. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references appear reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were detected by the link-checker tool. Everything looks okay on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: the bot hasn't updated this yet. What migth be causing this problem? Dr Salvus 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [9].[reply]

List of Harlem Hit Parade number ones of 1944[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the third nomination for a list of number ones on what Billboard considers to be the earliest iteration of its R&B chart. Interestingly, in this year the magazine launched what it considers to be the earliest iteration of its country chart, and two songs were both "R&B" and "country" number ones......75 years before "Old Town Road"! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

• For this part, an area noted for its African American population which has been called the "black capital of America", I would replace "which" with "and". I believe that "which" makes it sound like the population is being called this rather than the district.
• Would it be beneficial to link Rhythm and blues in this part, the lineage of the magazine's multimetric R&B chart? Other genres are linked in the second and third paragraphs.
• Shouldn't this part, which since 2005 has been published under the title Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs, have a citation?

My comments are relatively minor. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Just out of curiosity, are you planning on bringing all the lists of Billboard number-one rhythm and blues hits through the FLC process as you have done for all the lists of Billboard number-one country songs? Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - all the above resolved. As for trying to get another 75+ articles to FLC........hmmmmmm, not sure. Let's wait and see :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That kind of project would be a lot of a lot for sure lol. Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion. Best of luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Cow-Cow Boogie (Cuma-Ti-Yi-Yi-Ay)" redirects to Cow-Cow Boogie.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I couldn't find anything to fiddle with in the prose. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; fewer reviews than normal, but at this point this is a list factory so I'll let it keep chugging along and promote. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [10].[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hamilton is a British racing driver who was won seven Formula One World Drivers' Championship and a record 103 Grand Prix victories. Last year, Hamilton broke Michael Schumacher's all-time record of 91 race victories and earlier this year became the first driver to reach 100 Grand Prix wins. I believe that the list complies with the featured list criteria and submit this list for all constructive criticism. MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

All the images are suitably licenced, and have appropriate ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward oppose per criterion 3c. If we have List of career achievements by Lewis Hamilton, why does this need to be a separate article? Most of the content (team, chassis, engine, race, season, placement) is also at Formula_One_career_of_Lewis_Hamilton#Results. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Reywas92: Please see my reply towards the bottom of the nomination MWright96 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by NapHit[edit]

• "becoming at 23 years and 300 days the youngest driver..." needs to be a comma after becoming and days
• "unable to regain his championship-winning performances..." regain feels like the wrong word here. Match perhaps?
• "Hamilton has so far accumulated 103 Grand Prix victories..." think so far is redundant here (from the chart image caption)
• "...after winning the 2019 Hungarian Grand Prix, where he holds a record 8 victories" would change the last bit to 'where he was won a record 8 times'

That's it from me. NapHit (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @NapHit: Have addressed all four of your queries MWright96 (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now my issues have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

• "Hamilton achieved a further three victories that season,[3] making him the second rookie after Jacques Villeneuve to be World Drivers' Championship runner-up and equalled" - comma needed after runner-up
• There's a couple of uses of "claiming victory", I wonder if this needs rewording? It reads a bit like there was uncertainty over who won and he went "It was me! It was me!" Does that make sense......?
• "Hamilton has won at a record 31 out of 37 different Grands Prix he has competed in" => "Hamilton has won at a record 31 out of 37 different Grands Prix in which he has competed"
• "Hamilton has won at a record 31 out of 36 different circuits he has driven at" => "Hamilton has won at a record 31 out of 36 different circuits at which he has driven"
• "the five race tracks where Hamilton has driven on" => "the five race tracks where Hamilton has driven"
• Same sentence: "and not achieved a Grand Prix victory at" => "and not achieved a Grand Prix victory"
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have made changes based on the six points you've made MWright96 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

• @MWright96, my views about this list is bit similar to @Reywas92. Your thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kavyansh Singh I believe the list complies with WP:NLIST as well as WP:GNG and I think that having put in the aforementioned list might cause that list to become bloated a little bit MWright96 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to give it a full review soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with MWright96 that if we moved this list to the career achievements one, it would be too big. I think a solution is to remove a list of wins from that article and link to this one with a brief description of his record etc. There's a well-established convention for these lists, so I don't think 3c applies, as it's not derivative and wins is one part of his career achievements. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I just wanted to know the nominator's thoughts. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full review:

• "Hamilton achieved a further three victories that season" — should be "Hamilton further achieved three victories that season"
  • Reworded slightly differently MWright96 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "and former childhood friend Nico Rosberg," — that means during the time of incident/collision, they were not 'childhood friend[s]'?
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "are the six races he has entered and not won" — 'not won' can be replaced by 'lost'?
  • I think the current wording is fine MWright96 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it. Nice one! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kavyansh.Singh: Have made changes where appropriate MWright96 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, except for one misuse of |format to add extra links to the "next" pages of a paginated results url. Fixed; promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [11].[reply]

List of birds of Nauru[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru is a tiny atoll in the Pacific Ocean that has only slightly more species of bird than square kilometers of land, but this list seems like a good way to try taking something to FL. AryKun (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

• There's not tables so not much to comment on there, but please add alt text to the images- alt text should briefly describe, in concert with the caption, what an image is of, rather than a big description of what it looks like, so e.g. "alt=speckled brown, white, and black bird" is just fine. --PresN 19:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt text for all images. AryKun (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I have always been told never to start a sentence with a number written in digit form, so to have the entire article start in that way looks very jarring. Is there a way to rewrite the first sentence to avoid this?

Rephrased the sentence.

• You write Micronesian imperial-pigeon with a hyphen, but the article on it does not use the hyphen.....?

This list uses Clements taxonomy, which adds the hyphens for the common name, while the IOC taxonomy used on bird species articles doesn't. AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's all I got - good work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

• ALT text can take a little improvement. Example "white, orange, and green pigeon sitting on branch" may imply that there are three pigeons, which is not the case here.

• I've modified the alt text for the first image to make it clearer that there's one pigeon. Any others that need tweaking? AryKun (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine! Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All the images (including some featured images) are appropriately licenced.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice work. The structure is a bit different than I expected (I thought it was a table) but this is fine. A question, is there a reason there are only some images when there are pictures available for several species? --Tone 18:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the article isn't a table, adding an image for each species would lead to having way too many images. As for why it isn't a table, it's partially on the basis of previous List of birds of X Fl's, which tend to not be tables (although I realize that many of these are very outdated), and because I personally think tables are only really needed for Endemic birds of X lists and lists of species in a taxonomic group. AryKun (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a source problem that I guess only shows up if you have the setting turned on: I'm seeing red "((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)" after your IUCN cites. And it's true, you don't have that; you're also using "last" as IUCN even though these pages were actually authored by "BirdLife International"; you're not italicizing genus/genus+species names (which is apparently the standard for biology articles); and you don't need "|language=en" - we're on the English wikipedia, so it's assumed that sources are in English unless otherwise stated. The first is an easy fix: use ((cite iucn)) and it will sort it out for you. The rest is easy for me to do as well (I have an offline script to generate iucn references), so I've gone ahead and done it for you; just something to keep in mind for future lists. In any case, promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [12].[reply]

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1945[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following two successful nominations and one which has multiple supports and no outstanding issues, here's the fourth in the series of U.S. number one R&B song lists. In 1945, Billboard abandoned its earlier sales-based "race records" chart and replaced it with one based on jukebox plays, but the two charts are regarded as one lineage by Joel Whitburn's chart books and other chart followers.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ojorojo

• I reviewed a sampling of the Billboard links and they check out. I noticed that after the switch, the Juke Box charts continued to show "Last Week" and "Weeks to date" numbers from the Hits, as if they were the same chart (Whitburn starts his #1s of 1945 at February 10, the last Hits entry, for some reason). It doesn't look like these are used in this list, but am pointing it out to be safe. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: do you think I need to reflect/mention that in the article or amend the wording in any way? Or is it not really pertinent to this list of number ones? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the songs that mention number of weeks on the charts in the lead don't spill over from one chart to the next, but this would be better confirmed by you. No need to change anything if this is the case. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: - I've added a clause mentioning that peaks and weeks on chart were carried over (I hadn't actually picked up on this before, so thanks for pointing it out). No records topped the chart pre- and post-change so I'm not sure anything else needs mentioning..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. The table sorting and images check out, so I'll support. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

I love R&B music, but I am honestly not that familiar with older music from this genre so this was a fun list to read for my personal enjoyment. I could not find anything that needed improvement. I support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pseud 14[edit]

• Suggest linking to Rhythm and blues on the first instance of R&B as you did in the 1944 list.

Apart from the very minor point, the article is very well-written as expected with your work on these lists. Nothing hindering me from supporting for promotion once above is addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [13].[reply]

List of accolades received by Black (2005 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating it because I believe this list is comprehensive enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "at the sets built by Omung Kumar" => "on sets built by Omung Kumar"
• "The film was opened on 4 February 2005" => "The film opened on 4 February 2005"
• "with the total grossing" => "with a total gross"
• "The film received eleven awards that include those" => "The film received eleven awards, including those"
• Ravi K. Chandran should sort under C not K - the K is not part of his surname
• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2021 (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. --PresN 18:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Overall, much of the language in the lead is unnecessarily wordy:

• "Bhansali, who wrote the story, co-produced Black under SLB Films with Anshuman Swami of Applause Entertainment, as well as writing the screenplay with Bhavani Iyer and Prakash Kapadia." → "Bhansali co-produced Black under SLB Films with Anshuman Swami of Applause Entertainment and co-wrote the screenplay with Bhavani Iyer and Prakash Kapadia." (allows verb tenses to agree and removes redundant information)
  • Correction: Just realized that the story and screenplay credits are different, so try: "Bhansali, who wrote the story, co-produced Black under SLB Films with Anshuman Swami of Applause Entertainment and co-wrote the screenplay with Bhavani Iyer and Prakash Kapadia." RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "the editing was finished by Bela Sehgal" is a weird phrase (she didn't just finish the editing, she did all of the editing). Consider something like "Bela Sehgal edited the film" or "the editing was done by Bela Sehgal".
• "production cost of" → "production budget"
• "In the International Indian Film Academy Awards' seventh iteration" → "At the 7th International Indian Film Academy Awards" (corrects preposition and removes poor synonym ["iteration"])

Other notes:

• External link should use www.imdb.com, not m.imdb.com
• When you use multiple sources (especially 3 or more), I would consider either combining them into a single ref tag or placing some of them next to each other horizontally. This is because when the table is sorted, cells spanning multiple rows are split, resulting in individual rows that are unnecessarily tall due to excessive footnotes, limiting the amount of text that can be displayed on screen at one time. (For example, when the table is sorted, the cells for the International Indian Film Academy Awards each become 5 lines of text tall solely because of the footnotes.) Let me know if I need to clarify this more or if you have questions.
• Footnote a should be converted to a complete sentence (by writing "The date..." instead of "Date..."), or its period needs to be removed.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

• Support. GeraldWL 01:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Articles by John Neal[edit]

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Neal (writer) wrote so many articles for magazines and newspapers that I WP:SPLIT that part of the John Neal bibliography into a separate list that includes some of the earliest American art criticism, the first article by an American ever published in a British literary magazine, the first history of American literature, and the first encouragements of Edgar Allan Poe and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. All the relevant comments brought up in the larger bibliography's recent successful FLC I used to improve this list as well, so I'm feeling pretty good about this. I hope you decide to look through this one and leave some comments! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead[edit]

• "This list of articles by American writer John Neal (1793–1876) is part of the larger John Neal bibliography" - articles should not start with meta statements along the lines of "This article...." Try "The bibliography of American writer John Neal included many articles"

Thank you for bringing this up. I was wondering about this when I wrote it. I just rewrote those first couple of sentences. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to repeat his full name in para 2, just use his surname

Agreed! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would merge the last two paragraphs as they are both very short

Agreed! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I will look at the list itself later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I'll address your later comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the list (as far as 1825)[edit]

• Some of the values in the date column don't sort correctly. December 1816 sorts before October 1816, December 1817 before September 1817, 1819 is just all over the place, etc.
• "A criticism Lord Byron's Manfred" - missing the word "of"
• "Alleges that John Taylor's identification of Junius as Sir Philip Francis to be false" - bit of a grammar issue here
• "An exploration of what is an isn't original" - missing the d on "and"
• "An exploration of how women are unlike, but not inferior, to men" => "An exploration of how women are unlike, but not inferior to, men"
• More to come :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed all the issues raised in the above 6 comments. The date column used to use only Template:Sort, but during Wikipedia:Peer review/John Neal bibliography/archive1, a reviewer convinced me to introduce Template:Date table sorting here and there in that list to simplify the code. I then applied those changes to this list. I see that the consequence was the sorting issue you raised, which I believe is fully fixed now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be one you missed - September 19, 1818 still sorts before all the other dates in that year...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on the list[edit]

• "early impressions of England over late 1823 through early 1824" => "early impressions of England from late 1823 through early 1824"
• "High praise for Edgar Allan Poe's work for the Southern Literary Messenger, his short story "Bon-Bon," and his poem "The Coliseum;" - missing closing quote mark on The Coliseum
• "A call for better construction and operation practices for Steamships " - steamships is not a proper noun so shouldn't have a capital S
• "Asks why Brother Jonathan isn't" => "Asks why Brother Jonathan is not"
• "ships seized by the Napoleonic France" => "ships seized by Napoleonic France"
• "written to accompany an accompanying engraving" - any way to avoid that repetition?
• "Support's the claims in his June 9, 1855 submission" - supports should not have an apostrophe
• Same on the next row
• ""which was nothing more nor less than a clever piece of advertising" - no closing quote mark anywhere
• "based on notes from his stay in London over forty years earlier;[338] published in 2 installments" => "two installments"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I just fixed all the comments raised in this section. Thank you for reading through this list and finding all these issues! Would you say that you now support this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments Support from Sdkb[edit]

• As an art critic Neal was the first in the US is a little awkward phrasing. Maybe just Neal was the first art critic in the US? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rephrased! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Compared to Neal's comparative lesser success in creative works, "his critical judgments have held. Where he condemned, time has almost without exception condemned also." The quotes in the lead, particularly this one, are not attributed, which seems to go against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up. I removed a few quotes and attributed the remaining ones, so I think this issue is resolved. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any reason that the first three external links have wikilinks to relevant pages but that University of Pennsylvania is not similarly linked? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Wikilink added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lastly, I don't personally have any notability objections, but given that this is a subtopic page of the bibliography article, which itself is a subtopic page of Neal's main article, I think it might be helpful to hear your argument for why this topic meets WP:LISTN. Having the case for notability discussed on record here can be a bit of a bulwark or at least a point of reference for anyone considering proposing an upmerge in the future. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up. Certainly this list and the John Neal bibliography from which it is split off are both notable because John Neal's written works have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (quoting WP:LISTN) that have published their own John Neal bibliographies, separating out his articles in magazines and newspapers from his poems, pamphlets, novels, etc, as you typically see in a prolific author's bibliography. In the bibliography, I chose "to limit [the] large [list of articles by John Neal] by only including entries for independently notable items" (quoting WP:LISTN again) and splitting off the rest into this list. The bibliography list is about 123k bytes and this list is about 173k, so per WP:SIZESPLIT, it seemed well justified to split out the articles section. Even though those guidelines "apply less strongly to list articles", it seems to me that the large size of the two lists in question justifies a size split. Furthermore, the way this list is split out from the bibliography seemed like a "natural way" per WP:SPLITLIST, in that it provided an opportunity to limit the articles included in the bibliography to only the most notable ones to serve as "a short summary of the material that is removed" (quoting WP:SPINOUT) while keeping the larger list intact in this separate list. And I think that pretty well summarizes my thinking on this! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this looks very solid; best of luck with the rest of the review! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Thank you for looking this over and bringing up these issues. With all of them addressed, do you support this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the list body, but I just did a source formatting review as well, and your command there is really impeccable! The only thing at all I was able to find was that there's a little bit of inconsistency in whether you link works/publishers: e.g. Harvard University is linked but Bucknell University Press is not. I personally really like to link works/publishers, as it allows readers to go check out what we have to say about them and verify their reliability, but for the purposes of FLC, all that matters is that you choose either linking or unlinking and be consistent. Once that's resolved, I'll be happy to support on the lead, the source formatting, and the overall article formatting. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. I just added Wikilinks for all publishers with Wiki articles. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the lead, the source formatting, and the overall article formatting, as I have reviewed those areas and all of my comments have been addressed. I'll leave it to others to review the notes column and other portions of the body (as Chris is doing above) and to do spot checks on sources. Overall, this is another great entry in Dugan's excellent work to make our coverage of Neal among the most comprehensive of any biography on Wikipedia. For transparency, I should note that Dugan and I know each other off-wiki. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

• The only image (File:John Neal.jpg) seems to be appropriately licenced, if it was published in that 1856 publication. Assuming good faith on that. So, Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do an image review! I just added a link to the image source info to where the original 1856 publication is hosted on Internet Archive. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

Perhaps, unfortunately, as this nomination is from the stone-age,sorry! I'll try to take a look very soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "reflect the author's broad interests" — I'd replace 'the author's' by 'Neal's'

I like it. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Compared to Neal's comparative lesser" — repetition, I think

Ha! Now that you say so, I feel silly having written that. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "As an early and outspoken theatre critic, he envisioned a future for American drama that was only partially realized sixty years later." — I am a little sceptical about this one. How can we very surely say that Neal really envisioned/though that? Perhaps, "wrote" or "spoke" would be better.

I see what you're saying. I changed "envisioned" for "drafted". Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hallowell, Maine as a" — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "A criticism of William Shakespeare" — that is something unique!

That is it; great work with the table! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for taking the time to read through the list and write out these comments. Do you feel they've been addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. Happy to support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Source formatting review has already been passed. Just few very minor points:

• Ref#131: "p. 190–192" — should be pp.

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#270: "p. 1050–1051" — should be pp.

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "New York, New York" — I think it should be "New York City, New York"

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to give a pass on source reliability as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for looking through all these citations and for checking on the sources! I really appreciate your interest after a lull in activity on this nomination. Are there any other edits required to pass this source review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say pass for entire source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, lets (finally) get this closed! Promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [15].[reply]

73rd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful nomination of 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards to featured list status, I've updated this article to cover the additional Emmy categories presented in the same year. It is admittedly a bit of a long, dry read, but I think it's important to cover these awards as well to complete the set. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, especially since I'd like to apply this format to other Creative Arts ceremonies. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing. Brilliant work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose checks out. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Read through the article and could not find anything wrong that stands out. Nice job! MWright96 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Aoba47 (pass)[edit]

• The citations are all high-quality and come from publications that I would expect to be in this kind of article. I do not see any issues the structure for the citations.
• I have done a spot check and the information matches the citation (i.e. author, publication date, etc.) and the information in the list is supported by the citations.

For the above reasons, this FLC passes my source review. It is nice to see these categories represented in the FL space. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To add to Aoba's source review, the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC) [16].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Georgia (country)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are four World Heritage Sites in Georgia and 14 on the tentative list. Medieval churches and monasteries (get ready for many church photos in this list), spectacular mountain villages, as well as prehistoric sites and nature. Standard formatting. The list for Azerbaijan is seeing decent support already so I am comfortable in adding this nomination. Tone 08:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

• File:Homo Georgicus IMG 2921.JPG – Licencing claims that "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art", but the object isn't "two-dimensional". Also, why is the underlying work is public domain in the United States?
• File:Vani boar diadem (detail).JPG – I am not sure about this one, so feel free to get a second opinion, but what is the copyright status of the underlying work?

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: As for the skull, there are some alternatives, such as File:Homo georgicus-MGL 95212-P5030043-white.jpg, which has another licence, what about this one? As for the diadem, this is a photo from a museum of an artefact whose author has been dead for centuries, so I suppose this is fine? --Tone 10:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is, better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced. --Tone 14:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for image review. An image review or any comments for my nomination would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Georgia has four sites on the list and a further 14 on the tentative list." - these should either both be written as numbers or both as words
• "then delisted as a World Herigate Site" - spelling error
• "the most recent site listed were the" => "the most recent site listed was the" (site is singular)
• "In 2010–2017, it was listed as endangered" +> "Between 2010 and 2017, it was listed as endangered"
• "which had both defensive and residential function" => "which had both defensive and residential functions"
• "With the height of 50 metres" => "With a height of 50 metres"
• "The vernacular architectural of the region" - pretty sure that should be "The vernacular architecture", but what actually is "vernacular architecture"?
• "Shatili is a mountain village at the elevation" => "Shatili is a mountain village at an elevation"
• "with buildings serving both in residential and defence function" => "with buildings serving both residential and defence functions"
• Don't think "late antiquity" should have a capital L
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you! Vernacular architecture refers to the ways people build without professional guidance. I'd link it but somehow I feel it would be confusing to the reader. In this context, I guess it can be seen as "not-church or not-castle". --Tone 08:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it would hurt to link it if we have an article specifically on it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a second thought, I agree. Linked. --Tone 09:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

• "Gelati Monastery got delisted" → "Gelati Monastery was delisted"
• "14" is written as a number instead of a word in the "Tentative list" section
• Update link to this page at Template:Georgia (country) topics so it avoids the redirect and will be bolded here
• Update "See also" link from Tourism in Georgia to Tourism in Georgia (country)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • @RunningTiger123: Fixed, thank you! --Tone 19:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Read through the list and could not find any major issues standing out. Note I have made an minor edit to the article for general formatting. MWright96 (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

• As with the other lists in this series, use of UNESCO for UNESCO lists is accepted. All the dates are consistently written. The link checker tool detects that all the URLs are working. So, it is a pass for consistency and reliability.

Spot checks

• Ref#1 — Broadly OK
• Ref#5 — "examples of medieval religious architecture in the Caucasus." — this is exactly same as the source. There should be some way to prevent that level of similarity.
• Ref#8 — OK
• Ref#15 — OK

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Kavyansh.Singh: Reworded the Mtskheta text. By the way, are you doing manual check of using some kind of tool? (if the latter, let me know so I can use it as well) --Tone 10:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tone – I'd say it is a pass for the source review. And I am doing it manually. There is Earwig's Copyvio detector, which is a great tool for various things, but is not very helpful for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 23 January 2022 (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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC) [17].[reply]

United States presidential elections in New Mexico[edit]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which New Mexico participated, with votes and percentage. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. Thanks! (44 states more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ChrisTheDude[edit]

• "Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party's nominee received" - needs a comma after nominee to close off the clause
• "except in the 1976" - either "except in 1976" or "except in the 1976 election" but not this
• "except in 1976, 2000, and 2016 presidential elections" =? "except in the 1976, 2000, and 2016 presidential elections"
• "Also, the winner in New Mexico has been the winner in Nevada in all the presidential elections except for 2000" - why is this significant?
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude – Done all. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ojorojo[edit]

I realize that this is one of a series and there is an expected consistency, but is there a reason for not having an explanation for the graph? A simple intro or caption (like for D.C.) might be helpful, rather than just having the axes labeled.

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo — Done. Tried to explain the graph in simple words, let me know if anything else is required. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I made a few spot checks and the rest looks good. I'll add my support. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and image review from theleekycauldron[edit]

• Drive-by comment from the peanut gallery: you might want to mention that New Mexico has the best bellwether record over its entire history by win percentage (not just that it has a good one; it's higher than any other state). this seems to be a reliable enough source for that. Possibly talk about Valencia county, as well? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @theleekycauldron. Good to see someone here, I almost forgot that this FLC exists ... I have added the fact that New Mexico has highest % of winners. Mentioning Valencia county would maybe trivia, as (1) it would be again repeating the fact that voters of New Mexico are genius in predicting (2) there is a whole bunch of these types of counties, and I don't think I'll include them in lists throughout this series (with the possible exception of Clallam County, Washington,) (3) Trump won Valencia in 2020, it finally lost its record ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice, thanks! Image review's a pass (one correctly ALTed and captioned free image), and I'll AGF on Guide to U.S. Elections, which seems to be inaccessible (i'd consider linking the google books version). For source review (version review :D), I'll say that the 25/28 stat is not borne out in ref 6, since it doesn't say that New Mexico has participated in 28 presidential elections. However, i'm not gonna review the table since it heavily relies on two sources I can't access. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, forgot to ping Kavyansh.Singh theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • (1) the google books version does not has a preview, so I am not sure if that would be helpful (2) Ref#6 supports that Since becoming a state in 1912, [New Mexico] has sided with the loser of presidential elections only three times: Gerald Ford in 1976, Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. The 25/28 data is from the table, and it does not need a separate citation. (3) There is David Leip source and official FEC source for various columns, which is online accessible. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • the preview was kind of helpful? not comprehensive enough for me to get into the whole thing. table explanation checks out. David Leip source has some minor variations from the wikipedia, so i assume you relied on the other sources in good faith. Happy to support! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks! The most daunting this about compiling these lists is when you get minor variations in sources. In that case(s), I take the data which multiple source agree with (see this old example). Let me know if you ever need a FLC review ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

              Happy to help, and thanks for the offer! I was thinking about taking a leaf out of your book and helping speed this series along a little :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

              • Thats good for me! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96[edit]

• "In the 2000 presidential election, Democrat Al Gore won New Mexico, defeating Republican George W. Bush by a margin of just 0.06% (366 votes)." - what is the signifinace of this statement?
  • From the total of around 615,000 votes, a person winning by just a margin of 366 votes is significant. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "New Mexico has been a leading indicator of election trends with a success rate of 88.9%;" - up until when?
  • Good point, specified until 2016 presidential election. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "the winner in New Mexico has won the presidency 25 of the 28 times" - suggest either rewording the text in bold to "25 out of 28 times" or expanding the end of this portion of text ever so slightly
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have MWright96 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96 – Made the changes. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

• Source review – As with the other lists in this series that I've seen, the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the content had a look from one of the reviewers above. The link-checker tool gave an internal service error for ref 4, but I checked it manually and it is in working order. I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC) [18].[reply]

List of Yuri on Ice episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this list meets all the requirements for FL status. It fits into the mould of similar anime episode list FLs as seen here. I am unsure what if anything needs to be added to improve the list but any suggestions to help promotion will be useful. ISD (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. ISD (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Link20XX[edit]

• Why is Crunchyroll italicized in the note "All English titles are taken from Crunchyroll"? It isn't a news website in this context, nor is it italicized on its Wikipedia article.
• Shouldn't the English home video release be included in the Home Video release section?

Those are my first comments. I will give more after a close read-through. In the meantime, if you could leave comments on my peer review, I will much appreciate it. Link20XX (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think I've made the changes you have suggested. ISD (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

• Replace the "n.a." in the fair use image with a proper justification, "n.a." is not an appropriate justification. Y
• Image caption is a fragment, no full stop required. Y
• MAPPA is unnecessarily piped to a redirect back to MAPPA. Y
• "to Yuri K." you say before that Yuri Katsuki (known as Yuri K.) Same for the others. Y
• "October 6, 2016 and" comma after 2016. Y
• "22, 2016 with" likewise. Y
• Link dub. Y
• "the message "See You NEXT LEVEL" was seen." displayed rather than seen. Y
• "the Billboard Japan Hot 100 chart" Billboard Japan should be in italics. Y
• Four-para lead is too much, three paras maximum. Y
• "the first Blu-ray/DVD set" don't repeat "Blu-ray/DVD" here. Y
• "in the USA on" just US. Y
• "produced by MAPPA, directed" see above. Y
• "Yuri on Ice will have six Blu-ray and DVD sets released" will have?? Y
• "series in the USA on" see above. Y
• "textless opening and closing" what is that? Y
• Spaced hyphens should be space en-dashes. Y
• "Hasetsu, Kyushu after" comma after Kyushu. Y
• "His performance gets secretly" is, not gets. Y
• " to Japan and" no need to link. Y
• You've linked it again in the second synopsis. Y

I'll come back to this, more soon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I hope I've done everything correctly, but I'm note sure about en-dashes. ISD (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to need you to check each one off one at a time, you haven't done the first one! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I thought that it was only one of the n.a. that needed replacing. I've corrected that, although if this is still not appropriate I would request a bit more help as to what does count as justification. ISD (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine. Please now go through each of my points and mark them off one at a time to ensure you've got them all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi - I think I've done them all, but I'm still not 100% sure whether my "n.a." replacements are suitable. ISD (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The headers of tables need to have colscopes, e.g. `! style="width:3em;" | No.` should be `! style="width:3em;" scope=col | No.`. This, along with rowscopes (which the episode list template gives you), helps screen reader software accurately read out the cells of the table.
• While the episode list template handles rowscopes for you, you need to add them to the "releases" table to the first/primary cell of each row, e.g. `|1` should be `!scope=row |1`. This changes the background color of the primary cells; if you don't like it, change the top line of the table from `{|class="wikitable"` to `{|class="wikitable plainrowheaders"`
• Tables need captions, e.g. `|+ caption_text` at the top of the table, (or `|+ ((sronly|caption_text))` to make it only for screen reader software if the caption would duplicate a nearby section header). Captions let screen reader software jump straight to a named table without having to read out all the text before it first. --PresN 14:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried to make the changes you asked for, but your guidance was not entirely clear. ISD (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My guidance was 1) add colscopes to all tables, 2) add rowscopes to the releases table, and 3) add captions to all tables, optionally using a template if the caption would be the same as a nearby section title. You did not do the first two, and while you added captions you also removed the section titles and made the tables collapsed? Collapsed templates like that aren't accessible and hide information from readers.

I've reverted your change, and instead done a quick example of what I was saying. I did not do the entire list; please do the rest. --PresN 18:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes, but I'm unsure how much you changed and thus how much was still left to change. I'm positive I've done the third of things you have mention, but the first and second things you mention appear to have been done by you I think (I'm still not sure as I'm still finding it confusing). ISD (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and did the rest, plus some other fixes. I didn't realize when I did the initial review that prior to nomination the only edits you'd made to the page since 2018 were a few references, and weren't at all familiar with what tables were on the page or what the table code was. --PresN 16:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Does this mean you now officially support the nomination now? ISD (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and accessibility. I have also reviewed ref formatting, but have not otherwise checked that the statements are backed up by the sources.--Alexandra^IDV 09:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC):[reply]

• Is there a romaji for the title?
• I have been told "()" should not be used so I suggest adding something like Yuri Katsuki, also known as "Yuri K." since it's more important for the rest of the body.
• FLCs are kinda demanding and I remember being asked with adding translations to Japanese references.
• I'm not sure about using Funimation as source since they block people from other regions so I would at least recommend an alternative to back it up.
• For some reason the opening and closing themes are repeated.
• "Note: Professional skater Stéphane Lambiel appears (voiced by himself in the Japanese dub and by Josh Grelle in the English dub) as a guest announcer for the GPF.[29]" Sounds kinda trivial unless it's worth mentioning in the body.

That's all. Ping me once the issues are solved and I'll support it. User:Tintor2

@Tintor2: I think I've done all the changes I can. I don't think there is a romaji for the title (there isn't one in the main Yuri on Ice article or in the ANN entry. Regarding Japanese translations, I'm not sure if there direct translations of those webpages, but I have referenced other English-language articles in the relevant spots if that is acceptable. Also, if referencing Funimation is wrong, is it also wrong to reference Crunchyroll. If so, I'll change the reference for the episode titles. ISD (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ISD: I meant using "trans-title" to the references. There is nothing wrong with Funimation but they don't allow other people accessing tot the site. Still, support without the nitpicking.Tintor2 (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Oh I see now. Thanks for clearing that up. ISD (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AryKun[edit]

Wow, this has been around for a long time. Haven't watched the show, so can't vouch for how correct the plot details are. Also haven't checked the references.

• Link Mitsurō Kubo.
• "broadcast in Japan, Funimation" → needs a conjunction
• Link Blu-ray/DVD.
• Standardize the spelling of "Mitsurou/Mitsurō".
• "challenging them - Yuri P." → " challenging them – Yuri P."
• "gets an Agape love" → Should agape be capitalized? Also check this in ep11.
• Don't think Russia needs a wiki link in ep3
• "him confidence" → "him the confidence"
• Japanese Figure Skating Championships is a uplink in ep5.
• "he is doing wrong" → Grammatically incorrect, rephrase. Perhaps "he is making a mistake"
• Beijing doesn't need a link in ep6.
• Thailand doesn't need a link in ep7.
• Moscow doesn't need a link in ep8.
• Barcelona doesn't need a link in ep10.
• "Phichit's, Christophe's, and Otabek'" → Who are these guys?
• "At the end" → "In the end"?
• Also, while not needed, a review at the FLC for List of birds of Nauru would be appreciated.

@AryKun: Thanks for pointing these out. I've made as many changes as I can. I've gone with the "Mitsurou" spelling in keeping with the article on that person. You don't explain what an uplink is regarding the Japanese Figure Skating Championships, so I thought it best to remove the link just to be sure. Regarding "Phichit's, Christophe's, and Otabek's", they were all fellow skaters in the competition, who are all previously mentioned in previous episode descriptions, but I added their surnames to help clarify things. Hope this all OK. ISD (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually meant to write duplink, but autocorrect came in the way. Anyway, all my concerns have been addressed, so I will support. Nice work with this and the amazingly fast response, hope it gets promoted soon. AryKun (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. ISD (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, mostly- if you could, please wherever a ref has a title in Japanese, please change e.g. `|title=TVアニメ「ユーリ!!! on ICE」公式サイト` to be `|script-title=ja:TVアニメ「ユーリ!!! on ICE」公式サイト` and add `trans-title=(english translation of the title text)`. I'm not going to hold up the nomination on just that, though, so, promoting. --PresN 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended that reference which you mentioned. Thanks for promoting this list up to FL. ISD (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC) [19].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Azerbaijan[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 07:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the Czech republic just being promoted, I am nominating the list of WHS in Azerbaijan. There are three sites and 10 tentative sites. The style follows the standard for these lists. Tone 07:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone: - the rubric at the top of the page says "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". You literally only started one yesterday which has as yet had no comments at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh, I had in mind that it was ok to have two at the same time but forgot about the other part. Oops :) Ok, I'll freeze this one for the time being. --Tone 07:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now the Armenia list has some decent support after the checking. I feel comfortable with returning this here now. --Tone 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – Pass[edit]

• All of the images used in the article are uploaded by the user on Wikimedia commons under suitable licence. Also, I noticed that "Lok-Batan" Mud Cone does have an image (File:Mud vulcanoes azerbaijan gobustan.JPG). I'll suggest you to use it in the list. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kavyansh.Singh: According to the file name, that picture is from Gobustan, which is another location. I removed it from the Lok Batan article, which is in Absheron. --Tone 20:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Tone – No real issues with the licencing, so Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM[edit]

• "Following the breakup of Soviet Union" again, this isn't in the UNESCO source.
• "2003 to 2009.[4] " and after 2009? Was it repaired? Should be covered here.
• "earthquake.[7][4]" ref order.
• "Maiden tower"->"Maiden Tower"
• "40.000 " 40,000
• "Greater Caucasus Mountains" no need to capitalise mountains.
• "(Fire - worshippers, temple - museum at Surakhany)" en-dashes, not hyphens.
• "rich in fossils from" no need to link common English words.
• Cells with no images, put in a centrally aligned en-dash or something to indicate that there's not one available, not that you just forgot.
• "50 000 bones" 50,000
• "at the altitude of" -> "at an elevation of"
• "Mountains, at the altitude of 2,300 metres" similar to before, no need to capitalise mountain, and "at an elevation of"
• "Khinalig - medieval" en-dash.
• Use the ((reflist)) template.
• Refs 11 and 19 need en-dash.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Fixed, thank you! --Tone 08:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: A courtesy ping, could you check if the changes are fine? --Tone 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: Could you check this one, please ;) --Tone 09:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

• "The petroglyphs on rocky boulders at Gobustan document the human presence in the area spanning 40,000 years. There are over 6000 rock carvings" - any reason why one number is written with a comma and the other without?
  • Made it 6,000.
• "There are three areas with petroglyphs within the buffer zone" - what's a "buffer zone"?
  • Removed, this is redundant anyway. Buffer zone is the area surrounding the main site where special protection is still in place.
• "with the height of 70 metres" => "with a height of 70 metres"
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thanks! --Tone 06:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun[edit]

Really nice work here, very little I could find wrong with this.

• "first site inscribed to the list" → "first site added to the list" would be better
• "Sheki" → "Shaki"? Not necessary, though.
• mausoleum of Nakichevan → mausoleums of Nakhichevan?
• Although not needed, a review at the FLC for List of birds of Nauru would be appreciated.
  • @AryKun: Thanks! I changed the first one, the second two are according to the source. These are sometimes using alternative spelling but I try to stick to that and link or mention the more standard naming later in the text. --Tone 08:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, will support then. AryKun (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC) [20].[reply]

List of Symphyotrichum species[edit]

Nominator(s): Eewilson (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Symphyotrichum is a genus of 96 asters native to the Americas common both as wildflowers and garden plants natively and in other parts of the world. I have been working on this upgrade in order to nominate for FLC since August. It now includes distribution maps, habitats, basionyms, varieties, and original years described. Images have been located for all but a few of the species. Named hybrids and their distributions have been added. The Lead has been expanded, and cladograms for the subtribe and the species within the genus have been created and added. There are NatureServe status categories for 75 of the species, and a NatureServe key was created for this expansion. IUCN categories were not used because only nine of the species are in IUCN, with only two of conservation concern that are covered by the NS statuses. The lists are separated by infragenera using the most recently published circumscriptions by Guy L. Nesom and John C. Semple, primary experts for this genus. Each list is sortable unless it is monotypic. There is a sortable list of infrageneric type species in the Classification section. Eewilson (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• 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. You already have column scopes for the table headers, so you're just missing row scopes. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! ((Anchor|chapmanii))''[[Symphyotrichum chapmanii|S. chapmanii]]'' becomes !scope=row| ((Anchor|chapmanii))''[[Symphyotrichum chapmanii|S. chapmanii]]''.
  • I did not know this! Done. Eewilson (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. On an unrelated note, since I'm the main person doing "animal" species lists like these- if you plan on doing more of these and would like to use templates instead of wikitable code (like ((Species table)) / ((Species table/row))) let me know- I made a genus version (((Plant genera table)) / ((Plant genera table/row))) once for someone's draft, but I never made a species version as I didn't know what features would be useful. Your tables here are more straightforward than mine, so it may not be useful to templatize them, but just let me know. --PresN 13:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I began the table upgrade, I reviewed the closest FL formats (all animals), and saw the templates. I think it would be good to look into templatizing plant tables, particularly since we may want more of these species by genera plant lists. We can discuss it on another talk page if you are interested. I'd be glad to give my input. A plant genera version could be of use as well (genera by family, for example). Eewilson (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.

:) Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little surprised this hasn't gotten a review yet; it might be because many regular FLC reviewers just aren't familiar with the language and style of botanical pages on Wikipedia. I can say this much: the terms all make sense to me, and this appears to be a very solid and complete plant list. But it's not my place to be making judgment calls about what plant lists ought to include. It may be that after a couple of your lists have passed FLC, the regulars will be more comfortable jumping in here ... we'll see.
• I was a little bit fiddly with my prose edits. There are probably reviewers who will say that some of those edits weren't warranted, and some who would say I should have done more. I tried to generally split the difference, mainly just chopping up a few sentences. As always with my copyediting, feel free to revert or discuss as you see fit. Where I said "one is native in eastern Eurasia", you might prefer something like "its range extends into Eurasia" ... that's more precise but maybe it's not necessary in the lead.

Looked good! Tweaked the Eurasia thing as you suggested. Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "(hybrids do not have their own articles)": not specifically disallowed by our WP:SELFREF guideline, but I've seen people mention that guideline when objecting to similar statements. I don't have a preference, but it's something to think about.

Well, I put that in the Legend not because I expect other articles to be referred to in their cases (I think that's what you mean), but because I had just said that there were links to the articles, but we don't do articles for hybrids, so there won't be links for those articles because they don't and won't exist. I'm really just talking about links vs. not links. The idea, too, although of lesser-importance, is to let others know that they don't need to introduce articles for the hybrids or even red links. Perhaps there is a better way, or perhaps that parenthetical expression isn't necessary in the Legend. Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The cladogram "Species classifications" is hidden by default. I'm sure it's above my pay grade to make calls on the proper formatting of genus articles, and I know that MOS:DONTHIDE isn't followed to the letter in biology articles ... but the more we're hiding, the more likely it is that someone will invoke DONTHIDE. Not my call, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it.
• PresN, since you regularly make calls on this issue in your lists and generally at FLC, I'd value your input on whether DONTHIDE applies here. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only hid it because it's SO BIG knowing that this would and should be brought up. Not sure what to do, but thoughts welcomed. Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I generally disregard DONTHIDE in regards to the technical issues as long as it's not actual article body text being hidden, because it's either wrong or out of date. I just verified- both on the mobile site and on desktop with javascript disabled, the collapsed bits are not "invisible", they're instead displayed uncollapsed (and with no option to re-hide them). I don't know when that got fixed, but it's been years at least as far as I'm aware. The more relevant part of DONTHIDE is the editorial one- don't make readers have to click to see things that are essential parts of the article. (Don't think too hard about how the mobile site collapses all of the entire sections and requires a tap for each). In this case, I agree with hiding it- it's pretty big, (it seems bulkier on desktop than mobile, oddly) and for many/most readers is of less interest than the tables that it would otherwise force them to scroll past to get to. I had the same problem in my animal lists, and solved it by only having cladogram at the genus level, and not the species, but I think what you've done here is fine. --PresN 03:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered within the last week that in the mobile app, you can go to settings and have it automatically expand everything. Apparently the default is to keep them collapsed because I don't remember ever setting it to be collapsed. Eewilson (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And by "everything", I mean tables, which includes all infoboxes, but not boxes (I think). Eewilson (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work on the table captions.

Thank you! Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no link pointing to this citation: Brouillet, L.; Labrecque, J. (1997).

And so there wasn't, and so it has been removed! Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review).
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, a sampling of the images seemed fine.

Did you notice that I tried to use standard "Plants Taxon Box" green, which I think is #baf4ba? :) Eewilson (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I might adopt that. - Dank (push to talk) 03:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 6. It is stable.
• Support. This is a spectacular genus list; I wish they all looked like this. - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dank! Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now...

Many of its species are native from subarctic North America to Chile, Argentina, and the Falkland Islands... "native from"sounds weird to me. I know what you're trying to say here. Needs rewording somehow. "range from" "found in locales from..to"

Otherwise that is the only issue. Looks great WRT comprehensiveness and readability Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: How about this?

Native distributions of its species are widespread in the Americas, including as far north as subarctic North America to as far south as Chile, Argentina, and the Falkland Islands. One species has a native range extending into eastern Eurasia.

"Distributions" sounds funny...but "ranges" does not to mine ears...then "one species extends into eastern Eurasia" to avoid duplication. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, is it against Wikirules to say that you are funny? Okay, how about this? Its species are widespread in the Americas, including as far north as subarctic North America to as far south as Chile, Argentina, and the Falkland Islands. One species has a native range extending into eastern Eurasia. I'll keep making changes until it's right. P.S. Take a look at the main page for 5 January 2022, TFA. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, am satisfied with it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Thanks, Cas! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

My only comments are:

• Half a dozen entries have no habitat info recorded. Is it not known?

I think that's true, yes, because I attempted to find everything for everything, but I'll check again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, this will take me a day or so or so. Good catch, and I don't know how I missed it! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, I was able to complete habitat information for the non-hybrid species Symphyotrichum schaffneri. The five hybrids with missing habitat information are empty because there is no habitat information in their protologues nor in any later literature that I searched. They will have to stay empty. All good? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes a to d are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops

Okay, I'll fix. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full stops removed from notes a through d. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll comment back when these things are changed. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. I think I've done everything I can with those hybrid habitats. Done? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

• Source review – High-quality reliable sources are used throughout the citation list, and the references appear reliable. The link-checker tool doesn't seem to like the Cal Berkeley links in terms of them working, but I tried a couple of them and they seem to be fine. It does turn up a false positive every once in a while, and this looks like one of those times. Overall, I'd say the source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Giants2008! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 19:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC) [21].[reply]

List of Colorado statistical areas[edit]