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, 31 December 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of diplomatic missions of Taiwan[edit]

Nominator(s): MSG17 (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is a de-facto state in East Asia which occupies an odd position in international affairs due to its limited recognition. This has been reflected in the country's diplomacy, with a small network of official diplomatic missions complemented by an unusually large amount of unofficial "representative offices". This article aims not only to provide a full list of all these missions, their status and any other relevant information about them, but also to inform readers about the political context behind them.

After considerable work adding references and developing a lead, as well as a completed peer review to discuss this list being the first of it's kind (as far as I know) to be a FLC, I believe it is ready to be evaluated. Thank you all in advance for your comments and reviews! MSG17 (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92

• I don't see any yellow in the top map, so it shouldn't be in the key.
  • Commented out
• The map only has Macedonia in purple, but there are lots of other countries which formerly had official missions. It seems that's because the rest are served by another one now, but that should be clearer here.
  • Added more detail. There are actually a few other countries (Panama, El Salvador and Sao Tome and Principe) that are purple, Macedonia is just the most obvious one.
• You should state that the unofficial offices go by Economic and Cultural Representative Office rather than hiding it in a piped link.
  • Not all offices use the same nomenclature. As noted in the article, some offices forego one or two of these adjectives Although I could comb through all the offices' names and see which one most of them use, I think it would be easier to keep "representative offices" as a simple, all-encompassing term.
• The two sentences about Hong Kong and Macau could be combined to for conciseness, also because it unnecessarily duplicates "In Macau".
  • Combined, also used the opportunity to eliminate more redundancies
• Most of the 'Also serves' makes sense, but I really want to know why the one in the Czech Republic also serves Cape Verde. Idk if you know if how it'd fit in the list (since there's no article on the office) but that's interesting.
  • Upon further research and link-digging, it looks like the Bureau of Consular Affairs mistakenly listed Cape Verde as being under the office in Prague instead of Portugal on the main page. Fixed
• Since there's an office in Guam, do you know why Palau also serves Guam?
  • Mistake on my part. Fixed
• Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office is already linked and should not be in the see also
  • Removed

That's all I have for now. Thanks for the unique topic! Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this! I have now responded to all of your comments. MSG17 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems good to me! Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sdkb[edit]

• The coloring in the map at top is fairly subtle; could we change the scheme to make it easier to read? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, trying to find a coloring scheme for the map has been rough. I added orange and green to make it easier and also to make sure some countries aren't blending in.
    • Looks much better. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure that the "region" column should be linked, per MOS:OVERLINK. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlinked
• The date when each office opened might be useful. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me. I started the work to add them. I'll reply again when this is done. With the talk about date related table columns, and considering that Taiwan/the ROC has a lot of former diplomatic missions, including in countries where it currently has them today (usually because of former official offices closing down and getting replaced after that country stops recognizing the ROC), it might even be better to split that into a separate page. What do you think?
    • A separate page might be a bit much. I think the date at which an official embassy got converted to a representative office might be useful, but I'm also not sure where to put it (notes column? a new column?) so I'm okay leaving it out and relegating it to the e.g. Belize–Taiwan relations pages. Speaking of which, it occurs to me that that might be a better link in the first column than just Belize. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sdkb: Yeah, those sounds like good ideas. I started adding dates for the opening of offices and I will get going on changing the country links. For dates, I think I will stick with opening of the most recent office - not date a predecessor embassy or consulate was founded (due to relations gaps), nor date of last renaming.
• Because "DFE" looks pretty similar to "DFC", it's hard to scan at a glance. Have you considered maybe just writing out e.g. "Representative mission; de-facto consulate" instead of putting that info in a footnote? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be too long for the column and thus would create unnecessary wraparounds. Would another column with the mission's status (de-jure or de-facto) work instead or is that too many columns? Or would it be better to designate unofficial ones with a footnote and list them all as embassies or consulates (basically reversing the info in the column and in the footnote)?
    • We're running fairly tight on column space. Reducing the width of the country column would help (only Saint Vincent would end up wrapping, which is a fair tradeoff), but beyond that I'm not sure. I think listing them as embassies or consulates with the footnotes could potentially work well, as de-jure vs. de-facto is already indicated by the coloring (except for Hong Kong/Macau?). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sdkb: Because the status of diplomatic relations is already marked with a color and a symbol, I decided to just write "de facto" in parentheses next to its status and get rid of the footnotes and repeating "representative mission" for every entry. Because of Hong Kong and Macau's autonomy, I thought that many of the consulates were de-facto embassies, but after doing further research they are designated as consulates (although some, such as the US one, have their officers report directly to their foreign affairs department instead of the embassy in Beijing).
• I think the gallery should have wikilinks to the offices that have pages. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked
• At 92 characters, the short description is more than twice as long as the target 40 characters, and mainly just repeats the title, which doesn't help with the disambiguatory purpose short descriptions are supposed to serve. I've seen many list pages just use "Wikipedia list article", which would probably be fine. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified

Overall, this list looks quite close to being ready for FL status, and I look forward to supporting once the above issues are addressed. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb:: Thanks for the comments. I have replied to all of them and would like your feedback. Also pinging @Reywas92: in case if they didn't see my comments. MSG17 (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• A sentence should not start with a number written in digit form, so suggest reversing the first sentence of para 2 to "Taiwan maintains unofficial relations with 57 United Nations members"
  • I reworked the prose in the lead to be more concise and avoid starting the sentence with digits (I also didn't want to be repetitive by starting each paragraph with Taiwan).
• "Missions in italics are consulates" - is there really any need for this, given that the word "consulate" is literally in the column for each one?
  • Done. Should I preserve the italics anyway? It's a useful indicator, but now that the listing has been reworked it's not necessary.
• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for reviewing! I have responded to your comments. MSG17 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I don't see any reason for the the consulates to be in italics -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. Unitalicized MSG17 (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24[edit]

Support based on my read-through and comments at peer review. Aza24 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Orbis (journal) has a link
  • Linked
• ref 6 and 7 missing dates
  • Fixed
• ref 10 seems to just go to the home page?
  • Changed ref to better one
• ref 52 missing authors (there's two of them btw)
  • Fixed
• ref 72 shouldn't be in all caps, convert it to title case (here's a converter to help)
  • Fixed
• date for ref 73?
  • Added
• ref 83 missing date
  • Added
• Wei needs an identifier of somekind, worldcat has an OCLC
  • Added
• Why does Brodsggard say "p. 290" in the biblio but uses other pages? Assuming this should be removed
  • Fixed, also modified link
• location for the "Nordic Institute of Asian Studies" to match the other locations in the biblio?
  • Added
• You may want to link publishers that have links in the biblio (e.g. Columbia University Press) since you do so in the references section.
  • Linked
• Formatting is good otherwise
• Found no reliabillity issues. Aza24 (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Thanks for the source review. I have responded to all of these issues. MSG17 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like ref 81 has a missing date, but I'll preemptively pass with the expectation that'll be addressed. Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I have fixed and updated the ref. MSG17 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ab207[edit]

• Active missions also can be brought under a subheading, for easy navigation.
  • Done
• Lausanne, a relatively unknown city is not blue linked.
  • Already blue linked in the former missions section. Do I have to link all occurrences of Lausanne?
    • Since that occurrence is earlier, I just linked it. Never mind
• Instead of hover title, I feel that using a different colour code would be more convenient to the readers. As the */** is are just 1-2 characters, the area to hover is very minimal.
  • These rows are already shaded red. Besides, the hover-over symbols are also needed to account for colorblindness and people using screenreaders.
    • I suppose you could use different shades of red while retaining hover. That way its perceivable to the colour blind, and also mobile version users where hover does not seem to work. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ab207: Changed the reopened ones to a more gold-orangish color MSG17 (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, works for me.

That's all from me. Good work overall! -- Ab207 (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: Thanks for looking at the page after I expanded the content more and made some changes to account for that. I have replied to your comments. MSG17 (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the nomination, my concerns have been addressed . --Ab207 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, promoted. --PresN 01:53, 30 December 2020 (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, 31 December 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of Bluey (2018 TV series) episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as the parent article, Bluey (2018 TV series) just became a Featured Article. I believe the quality of the episode list is on par with the show's main page. I am happy to receive any feedback to improve the quality of the episode list before it gets promoted. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: @JAYFAX: @TheJoebro64: @Allied45: Hi editors. Thank you for your support in Bluey's FA review. I was wondering if you could please leave some feedback on this episode list, if possible. Many thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ[edit]

Support No issues found. The list is meticulously sourced and the lead reads well. A minor comment that would not affect my support however: shouldn't viewer numbers be better off with something like "Australian viewers (in thousand)"? HĐ (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks so much @HĐ:. The only reason that suggestion bothers me, is that I'd have to list, for example, 450 instead of 450,000, and it seems a bit more confusing to me. I hope it's fine to leave as is. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response, and I concur with what you say. If possible, I'd love you have your input at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Taylor Swift singles discography/archive1, which I just nominated a few days ago. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Some Dude From North Carolina[edit]

• Support per above (HĐ) and because I also couldn't find any issues with the article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support @Some Dude From North Carolina: and best of luck with your featured list. SatDis (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MarioSoulTruthFan[edit]

• Support Aoba 47 already did a meticulously review on the article and I don't say this very often, but it is flawless. Excellent prose on the lead. Once the third season and others are out you will keep the article updated. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, thanks for your feedback @MarioSoulTruthFan: I appreciate it. SatDis (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So for linking publisher/works you can either link them all, none or the first mentions (consistency is what matters), right now your linking of Australian Broadcasting Corporation doesn't fall into any of these categories since it appears earlier in ref 1
• Would think you should link The Guardian
• Thank you for the consistent retrieval dates and archive links!
• I see no issues in reliabillity
• I'll preemptively pass for source review as the issues are so minor, do address them though when you get around to it. Aza24 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aza24: Have addressed the issues above. Thankyou! SatDis (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about promoting an in-progress tv show, but on the other hand it's not like there likely to be massive changes to a young kids' show beyond adding more rows whenever the next season comes out- it's not exactly Game of Thrones. So, closing, promoted. --PresN 01:53, 30 December 2020 (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, 31 December 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1950[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy y'all :-) With 59 of these lists already promoted to FL, here's what I hope will be the 60th in the series (and my 100th FL according to WP:WBFLN). In this year, Hank Snow had one of the biggest hits - random fact: my dad attributes the fact that I like classic country music to the fact that he took my mother to see Hank Snow in concert when she was expecting me and I heard the music in the womb (not in 1950, though - I'm not that old!!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This list satisfies all FL criteria, well done! There are two commas missing in the first sentence and in "Finally, in December Lefty Frizzell...", but that's very minor. Also +1 for the random fact. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commas sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top-notch. ~ HAL333 04:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

• No issues in reliabillity
• Formatting is consistent through out; ISBNs, retrieval dates, linking, publisher inclusion etc
• Pass for the Rembrandt of list creators... :) Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your kind words -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. You know my whole routine at this point ... I ran through everything, and other than adding a table caption, I've got nothing, not even copyediting. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh wait, I just found some redirects in the table to fix. Okay, now I feel useful :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't find any problems, but maybe add author-link=Stephen Thomas Erlewine for ref #10 for consistency (Whitburn is linked at 1st occurrence). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I hadn't realised he had an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, promoted. --PresN 01:53, 30 December 2020 (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) 00:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of Vampire: The Masquerade books[edit]

Nominator(s): Alexandra^IDV 12:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all! This is my second FLC, following last year's List of World of Darkness video games, and is also about the WoD series - this time about tabletop game books, organized by which game edition they were released for, and with annotations describing each item. Although I feel more confident than I did last year, this is a larger list and not in the same format, so I will again appreciate any advice and constructive criticism. Alexandra^IDV 12:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Given that you already mentioned WWP in paragraph 2, I would move the present paragraph 3 above that paragraph
• Surely "The Players Guide" is actually called either "The Player's Guide" or "The Players' Guide"? Same for "The Storytellers Handbook", "The Players Guide to the Sabbat" and some others
• That's all I got on a first pass...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Fair, I've gone back and forth on what the best way to organize the lead would be, and followed your suggestion.
  • I had the same reaction as you, but bafflingly, they really are called "The Players Guide" etc without any apostrophes - see for example these cover scans: [5], [6].--Alexandra^IDV 20:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review!--Alexandra^IDV 22:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looked through the text and found nothing that appeared to fail any of the FL criteria. And I'm friends with Alexandra so I took care to try to find things wrong with it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you!--Alexandra^IDV 00:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• The last sentence of the lead section seems too long, compared with similar leads. Would you object to moving the second half of that sentence to somewhere else in the lead? I'm talking about "in the mid 1990s, new World of Darkness books were often top sellers,[2] and by 2001, Vampire: The Masquerade was the second best selling tabletop role-playing game after TSR, Inc.'s Dungeons & Dragons."
• Time to sleep ... I'll be back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: I think I agree, but I also don't know where else I'd put it - the reason I wrote it at that point in the first place was because it connected to and illustrated the bit about how they only rarely published adventure modules. For now I have broken it off into a separate sentence, at least.--Alexandra^IDV 06:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "May 2021" (in the column "Original release") should be followed by "(projected)", "(scheduled)" or similar.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding and sorting in the table seems fine.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. There's a potential issue with the one video from YouTube ... but I mostly AGF on sourcing issues, and I'll leave this for other reviewers, if they want to ask questions. Otherwise, the article is well-sourced to reliable sources (the English-language ones, anyway ... my French is terrible), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any other 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. The one image doesn't meet the "threshold of originality" required for copyright.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! The Youtube source is actually an upload by the series owner, Paradox Interactive; when the book I'm citing it for comes out and gets reviews by RSs, I will switch to citing those instead. The French and Italian sources are major gaming magazines/websites, so they should be uncontroversial as well.--Alexandra^IDV 08:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ImaginesTigers

Relevant criteria

1. Prose:

Prose is strong and clear, as noted by Dank.

2. Lead:

The lead is engaging, and clearly establishes what will be included within the list, as well as providing useful, well-sourced background.

3a. Comprehensiveness:

I cannot say that the list includes everything that should be here, but it certainly looks incredibly thorough, with useful information (ISBN numbers, for example) about the texts, including the shift from sole publishing by White Wolf.

3b. Comprehensiveness:

Although Dank has noted the issue with one YouTube reference, it seems that the nominator knows where to find that information, and given the attention and effort poured into the article, I think she's certain to fill it in, should she get it.

3c: Comprehensiveness:

As noted, no issues.

4. Structure:

Any user aiming to find something in particular would be able to find it with no issues.

5. Style:

I'm not an expert on images or files, so I am going to leave that to others. One thing that I'll say is that, unless the footnote requirements for lists differ from that of regular main body articles, they should likely be given their own section. I don't know what opinion at large is on this (because they are not used to navigate), but it does seem to be a common practice. See 1. here and 2. here. This isn't a universal truth, so I'm happy to defer to Alexandra on this one; footnotes attached to words just always strike me as a bit ugly-looking.

6. Stability:

The article is stable.

Support

Nominator has clearly put a lot of time in to create a well-presented list, evidenced with judicious and well-chosen sources. It also seems fairly clear that she will continue to update the list as additional sources come in. Even if she weren't, it would still be a fairly clear pass. Well done! ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I assume you mean how there's no dedicated "ref" column? I chose to handle it like this since there is not always a single source covering all the information for a given item, and since it this way makes it clear both that all information is backed up by sources, and what sources are used for what.--Alexandra^IDV 21:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes total sense! You've obviously given it some thought. A straightforwardly good list. ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest (completely optional) that you add ill links for Guide du rôliste galactique: "=((ill|Guide du rôliste galactique|fr))" the search in advanced tools may help with doing this quickly (e.g. entering replace "=Guide du rôliste galactique" with "=((ill|Guide du rôliste galactique|fr))"
• I've gone through every ref and (rather surprisingly) found no issues in formatting or reliability. As the point raised above is optional, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I've thought about writing an enwp article about that site, so I'm going to hold off a little bit on implementing links, but otherwise a good suggestion!--Alexandra^IDV 09:03, 24 December 2020 (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) 01:17, 28 December 2020 (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) 00:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of Pomona College people[edit]

Nominator(s): ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 10:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I've been working on this page quite a lot, and following a recent peer review, I believe it's ready to face the FLC gauntlet here. A few notes:

• Since college people lists are necessarily dynamic, the big challenge was ensuring comprehensive enough coverage. I took a ground-up approach, starting with using FindLink to add missing links to Pomona College. From there, I made a PetScan query of biography pages that linked to Pomona but were not categorized with an affiliation. I was able to categorize 95 alumni, 49 faculty members, and three trustees through this method. Once I had the categories in better shape, I was able to peruse them for particularly prominent or Pomona-connected individuals to list. The current list still isn't perfect, but due to the above, I'm reasonably sure I'm not missing some major entry like a U.S. Senator or similar.
• I used List of Dartmouth College alumni and other WikiProject Higher Ed FLs as starting inspiration, although I hope I've been able to exceed them in a number of ways.
• I intentionally tried to keep the lead fairly concise (similar to the Dartmouth list, sans the notation key, which is unneeded for an all-undergraduate college), since my editing philosophy is that lists with an associated page (in this case, Pomona's main page) should stick to being lists and leave the more detailed description for the associated page.
• For the redlinked entries, I included additional citations to demonstrate notability.
• I was able to find the graduation year or tenure for almost every entry; the remaining instances in which the exact year is listed as unknown each reflect quite a bit of searching to ensure that it is truly not publicly available.

Feel free to let me know any questions, and looking forward to your feedback! Non-mandatory QPQ done at List of Broadway Theatres. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 10:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The caption for James Howard needs a source.
• In the "See also" section, can you include a link to a category? I've never seen that done before. It could be perfectly fine though - I don't know.

Very solid work. Had trouble finding anything. ~ HAL333([8]) 21:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: I've added a source for the Howard caption.

Regarding a category in the see also section, that was present at the Dartmouth FL, but I'm not entirely sure if there's a solid precedent for it. I'm inclined to think it's okay because categories are supposed to be reader-facing pages (evidenced by the help page for them and the practice of marking non-content categories with ((Maintenance category)); the line does get blurred, though). The usefulness is that the category has a wider scope, including e.g. trustees and alumni that I didn't judge notable enough to add here. I'm not an expert in categories, so someone more knowledgeable might be able to weigh in, or we could ask at the categories WikiProject. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I noticed you just removed the category link. Do you have thoughts about this? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have generally not seen category links in see also sections and am under the impression that see also sections are for articles only. Seems unnecessary to include the category link there given that category is found where you always find categories: at the bottom of the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If I had to take a guess myself, I think including the category link should be fine. Interested to see what other reviewers think. ~ HAL333([9]) 22:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Okay due to the huge amount of sources I'll take this in chunks:

• ref 4 missing retrieval date
• Assuming "pomona college" should be italicized for refs 6–7 – actually when refs are from Pomona College but not the magazine, Pomona College is the publisher not the work so should not be italicized
• Usually we take the "www." out of website names
• also pomona college is linked in ref 6 but not the other times
• ref 20 shouldn't be in all caps – a MOS thing
• Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources (refs 49, 28, 148) I guess 100 is OK since it's the blog of the subject
• Linkedin is not a reliable source – refs 38, 78, 173, 185
• Got to 105, will do more soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Thanks for beginning the source review! Responding in order:

• Ref 4 looks like it has a retrieval date to me; could you clarify?
• Done. I de-italicized Pomona in all the refs, by swapping out |work=Pomona College and |website=Pomona College for |publisher=Pomona College.
• Done. www's removed.
• Done. Pomona de-linked in ref 6.
• Done. Ref 20 switched to title case.
• I swapped out refs 28 and 49. For ref 148, it's the only open-access place I could find Virginia Prince's year of graduation. I've applied to get access to Taylor & Francis through the Wikipedia Library to try to get access to this journal article, which will hopefully have it. If it doesn't, the place it would be would be this biography book (unfortunately not available online), but I have no clue how I'd get access to that.
• I'm using the LinkedIn citations solely to establish graduation year for people where it is not otherwise available online. My understanding is that this is acceptable per the criteria at WP:ABOUTSELF. Each of those entries contains a separate citation supporting the notability.

Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks to the wizards at the reference desk, now done for Virginia Prince as well. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initiative (and ping) with 148, LinkedIn seems fine under that pretense, no idea what I meant about ref 4 :) Looking through the rest now, sorry for the delay. Aza24 (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch:

• Really not sure about the reliability of ref 108
• ref 109 missing author
• some issues with 129/130 – missing publisher/work/website (or some cobination of them) missing retrieval dates and when I go to the source it says "Your connection is not private, hackers may be trying to steal your passport" lol so...?
• 119,120, 123 missing retrieval date
• 124 missing a publisher, work or website parameter
• "State of California" as publisher for ref 131?
• retrieval dates for basically all of the "Biographical Directory of Federal Judges" ones
• Whats the deal with all the mixed "citation"/"cite web" templates?
• 203 needs publisher and ISBN (978-0-9794984-0-4 I think)
• retrieval dates for ref 275, 277, 287, 293, 314, 315 retrieval date
• 313 needs an identifier of some kind (world cat has an oclc)
• Reliability looks fine over all
• Completely optional but I would recommend running the internet archive bot as lists like these with hundreds of varying web sources often fall victim to dead links. If you don't want to run it I would be happy to myself, just let me know. Aza24 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Replying in order:

• Done. I replaced ref 108 with two more reliable refs (both to museums).
• Done. Author added to ref 109 (now ref 110).
• Done. It looks like there was some sort of expired security certificate—it let you through if you checked the "trust this website" box, but that's not ideal. I updated the URLs, which should hopefully fix the issue, and filled out the retrieval dates.
• Done. Retrieval dates added to the ((CongBio)) references.
• Done. United States Senate Committee on Finance added as publisher.
• Done. State of California added as publisher.
• Done. Okay, this one was more of a challenge than expected. These references all use ((FJC Bio)), which unlike the CongBio template isn't a nice wrapper of a standard citation template, but rather an ancient custom-built mess that had already sent me diving into the source code of the FJC website just to retrieve the IDs. It didn't have any |access-date= parameter available. So I added one, which has gotten the display here working correctly, but it's pretty hacked-together (it only respects the ((use mdy dates)) setting because of an additional |date-format= parameter which I also added). I'm still sticking to using it, since I believe in centralizing, but that template is, uh, definitely not passing the hypothetical WP:Featured template candidates anytime soon.
• Done. The ((Citation)) uses were all relics added to this page before I started working on it. I changed them all to the more specific variants, which has fixed the CS1 vs. CS2 comma inconsistency issue.
• Done. So this was another rabbit hole. The ISBN looks to be for the third edition of the book, but that edition (and maybe the others) looks self-published, so I went searching for a different source for Mill's 1945 graduation date to replace it. Once I figured out her maiden name (absent from her actual page; will fix that soon), I found an article from 1947 describing her as a current student. Ack. With a little more digging, the alumni magazine has her as class of 1948 based on a class note here, so I changed it to that and added the magazine as the replacement reference (the L.A. Times one still works for her notability description).
• Done. 314 (now 315) doesn't have a retrieval date because it's an offline reference. I added the retrieval date for the rest. If 314-now-315 is still an issue, we can just remove it; it was there mainly to establish Sumner's notability when he was a redlink, which is less of an issue now that he has a page.
• Done. Added OCLC number for "Granite and Sagebrush" (as well as "The History of Pomona College" next to it, which also seems like it needs something).
• Sounds good.
• In queue here. I haven't activated IABot before, so if I need to do anything else, please lmk. It gave me a "page too big" error when I tried the initial method.

Thanks again for doing the review! (and giving me an excuse to distract myself from the U.S. election coverage...) Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 11:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem – and thanks for your attentiveness. The review definitely gave me a distraction from that as well... eek, the only thing scarier than the anticipation of the election is thinking about a world that has WP:Featured template candidates :) Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - references are cited & archived, and this article passes the FL criteria. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

• This list of Pomona College people - Like regular articles don't begin with "This is an article about X", lists shouldn't contain this type of self-reference. See MOS:FIRST.
• and today has approximately 25,000 living alumni. - Don't use language like "today", "currently", "recently", etc, because it's the type of writing that becomes outdated with time (versus language like "as of December 2020"), and makes the reader wonder exactly how up to date it is - without checking references, they cannot know if "today" means a month ago or if it was written ten years ago. See MOS:REALTIME.
• The lead feels a little short, and I notice it does not mention any specific people. Do sources refer to any of these people as particularly prominent when discussing Pomona? If so, may be a good idea to mention those in the lead; otherwise, that's fine (and we do want to avoid recentism).
• How come the presidents table cannot be sorted?
• Aside from this, it looks good. Please ping me when you have addressed the above, and I will take another look. Thank you!--Alexandra^IDV 14:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks so much for the review, Alexandra! Replying in order:

  • Re MOS:FIRST, that's a good catch! Nearly all of the current college people featured lists use the "this list" framing, so if others here prefer it, it might be worth reevaluating in a more general forum how much consensus there really is behind the MOS guidance, but for now I've rearranged the lead so that it starts with the description of Pomona rather than declaring itself a list.
  • Re MOS:REALTIME, I've removed that language.
  • Re mentioning specific people in the lead, my view is that generally, lists like this shouldn't do so, since no one person stands out so much that they rise to the level of defining the group as a whole. Jennifer Doudna, a 2020 Nobel Prize laureate, has been getting a lot of attention lately, but that's recentism. I think it's better to just list people in the body, where they can be presented in a nice table format rather than a messy prose list, and to highlight particularly prominent individuals by including photos of them. The point I made in my opening comment about lists with associated pages sticking to being lists is also related.
  • Re sorting of the presidents list, I left that out (a) since it's short, meaning there's less need, and (b) since the chronology aspect is a lot more important (for alumni/faculty, it would be plausible to make the default sort alphabetical, but we'd never want to do that for presidents).

  I hope those edits/explanations help address your concerns! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thank you for your edits and replies! I did make this edit to make sure we adhere to MOS:SEASON (feel free to adjust specific wording), and think this list is in great condition now.--Alexandra^IDV 08:58, 24 December 2020 (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) 01:07, 28 December 2020 (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) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC) [10].[reply]

List of plant genus names (L–P)[edit]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go, I think. This list (the first nomination in a 4-part list) follows the advice I got and much of the format in my previous two FLs, List of descriptive plant epithets (A–H) and List of descriptive plant epithets (I–Z). Johnboddie helped as usual, especially with images, and PresN did excellent work on the third and fourth columns. As always, all comments are welcome. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me. ~ HAL333([11]) 23:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I got nothing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

• Two non ref related things:
• Whats the point of the note for "Latin"? – the column is already wide so can't the full word just be put there? – actually the L is defined in the key so this doesn't seem needed at all
  • Note removed. - Dank (push to talk)
• At the moment when sorting the C and G columns, they display the rows which do not have C and Gs first, which seems less than ideal. Would it be possible to change this?
  • I don't follow ... change it to what, and why? Formatting matters aren't important to me, but since two of my lists have passed FLC so far with this format, I'd probably have to get an okay from the previous reviewers before making a change. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you click the sort bottom on the C or G columns, it displays nothing, and displays the C/Gs later (try it and you'll see what I mean). The easiest solution is to have a "|data-sort-value="ZZZZ"| " for the empty columns – surely that would be ideal? Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I understand what you're saying, clicking twice on the sort button gives you exactly the sort order you're looking for, and exactly the sort order that's standard in the MediaWiki software, so it's what people are expecting ... they're likely to be used to clicking twice if they want the blanks or other lowest-ranking characters to move to the bottom. So why not click the button twice? - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Your publishing locations are inconsistent, New York, NY (no "US") vs Portland, OR, US – standardize to one or the other (issue present in further reading as well)
  • I can't standardize on "Portland, OR" because many people outside the US would have no idea what "OR" means. I can add "US" to New York, NY if there's some rule that says I have to. - Dank (push to talk) I looked it up ... in every recent FAC I checked, "New York, NY" or similar was preferred over "New York, NY, US". I'm not saying this is an important issue ... it isn't, and the outcome wouldn't bother me either way ... I just want to get it right to avoid trouble down the road. (And I'm running this question by Nikkimaria just to make sure.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked Nikki ... it looks like I won't catch any flak if I consistently leave the country out ... If that works for you, I'll make the change in all my lists. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, that sounds like a reasonable solution. Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• rather than saying "Hardcover edition published in 2000." you may want to use "|orig-year=2000" – perhaps for the 3rd further reading as well
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliability is great of course and formatting looks good otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues resolved, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

• Johann Gottfried Olearius (1635–1711) is linked, but no such article exists, and there is no explanation on this page as to who he is.
  • I added an ((ill)) link, since some reviewers prefer those ... if you'd rather that I write out something in English, that would be fine too. - Dank (push to talk)
• Valeriana phu also links to a non-existent article without context for what it means
  • Linked to the genus article (which is how these lists handle non-existent species pages in general). - Dank (push to talk)
• Minor thing, but love (probably for the attractive flowers) - yeah, they're pretty, but slight rewording may be needed to not say that they are so objectively in WP's voice
  • Deleted "attractive". - Dank (push to talk)
• Looks good otherwise. Please ping me when you have addressed the above and I will be back asap!--Alexandra^IDV 06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good catches, thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC) @Alexandra IDV:. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! I did not get a notification from the @, but happened to see this while looking through the current FLCs again. While I think I would prefer to also see a brief description on this list of who Olearius is, I'm not going to hold up my review because of it - the interwiki solution works, too.--Alexandra^IDV 05:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Alexandra^IDV 05:44, 17 December 2020 (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) 01:12, 28 December 2020 (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) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC) [12].[reply]

List of plant genus names (A–C)[edit]

Nominator(s): Johnboddie (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first solo nomination. Dan (Dank) and I tried to follow the format at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genus names (L–P)/archive1. I'm happy with the way the images turned out ... I hope you will be too. Johnboddie (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some shouts: John's done amazing work on this list, and did a hefty chunk of work on all our previous lists too. PawełMM of the Graphics Lab has done flawless work cropping many of these images. And many thanks to PresN for doing database and cleanup work to generate the third and fourth columns (all of which goes over my head). - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "snow berries (File:Chiococca alba16072019.jpg)" - why is there what appears to be a "bare" file name here?
• Actually I think that' it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack! It's now removed. Thanks. Johnboddie (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Great work! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Johnboddie (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've looked through the lead, the notes and the whole table, and couldn't find any issues. Nice work.--Alexandra^IDV 01:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Johnboddie (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look fine, and the one link is in working order. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 24 December 2020 (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) 01:22, 28 December 2020 (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, 29 December 2020 (UTC) [13].[reply]

91st Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2019 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2020 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 06:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I now support after making a minor fix myself, and media review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the consistent retrieval dates
• It looks like the linking of publishers/websites pattern you're going with is to link the first mention only (which is fine), if so you're missing links for ABC News (ref 4), New York (magazine) (ref 52)
  • With this in mind you're double linking Television Bureau of Advertising at the moment
• missing authors (there's two) for ref 14
• ref 24 has an extra ")" ?
• In ref 27 you have "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)" the others are just "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" – either is fine, it should just be the same for all refs
• ref 34 is missing author
• Formatting is good otherwise
• Spotted no reliability issues. Aza24 (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I have addressed all your comments. Thank you for the source review.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great now. Pass for source review, thanks! Aza24 (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2020 (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) 01:26, 28 December 2020 (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, 19 December 2020 (UTC) [14].[reply]

List of avisos of Germany[edit]

This list comprises all of the avisos built by the German fleets, beginning with the Prussian in the 1840s and ending with one such vessel for the Nazis in the 1930s. The list is the capstone to this topic. The list passed a Milhist A-class review earlier this year, so hopefully it shouldn't need much work. Thanks to all who take the time to help me iron out any remaining issues. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank

• Good to see you at FLC again, Nate.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the tables seems fine.
• 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 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. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support and well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look good to me, thanks Dan! Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Some small things:

• Reliability looks good, academic sources mostly.
• ISBN for volume 8?
  • For some reason, the books don't have ISBNs printed in them and Worldcat stopped putting entries in after volume 7.
• link Matti Friedman
  • I always forget to look for these
• translated title for Bilzer? (and, I'm guessing, an "in german" as well?)
  • Added
• Everything else looks good Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd about the ISBN, I looked around a little and couldn't find it or OCLC either, are you using an online or physical version? Maybe it would be available inside the book itself. Aza24 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have hard copies - they don't have ISBNs printed in them, for some reason. They're obviously not so old as to predate ISBNs. I will say that Worldcat is often very spotty in what they do and don't have entries for, particularly foreign works. It can be frustrating. Parsecboy (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed... no worries though, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look soon. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• At least to me, it seems more accurate for the Nix class to give the dates sold to Britain in the table for the end of service date, as the focus is on the usage in the navies of the various German states in this article. If this change is made, the same thing applies with the latter Grille
  • That's a fair point
• "She sortied twice more by early May, but on both occasions encountered far superior Danish forces and withdrew without attacking" - Just checking in to make sure that by is necessarily the word that conveys the right context here, as by and in would have different connotations here.
  • The two operations were on 24 April and 6 May, so "by" is correct
• "she was the first steam ship to use screw propellers rather than the paddle wheels of earlier" - A bit nitpicky, but this implies multiple screw propellors, while the table states that the ship had only one.
  • Fixed
• "With Grille serving as a yacht in the 1850s, the navy decided it needed another aviso to serve as a flagship for the gunboat flotillas defending the country's Baltic coast." - Specify that it's still the Prussians at this point.
  • Done
• "Falke was originally built as a speculative project by her British constructors, who intended to sell the vessel to the Confederate States Navy for use as a blockade runner during the American Civil War" - Just checking in to see what the sources explicitly say. A number of ACW blockade runners were actually privately owned, so just want to make sure that the CSN is explicitly stated, not just assumed.
  • Hildebrand et. al. say (in German) the ship was built "on speculation for the Confederate States of America, but was not taken over."
• "Greif was not a successful warship" - Can it be briefly stated why?
  • The sources aren't clear on this one, unlike some of the others (like the Meteors).

Willing to discuss any of these, and retract if need be. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The 1880s saw a significant aviso construction program that included the two Blitz-class avisos, Greif, the two Wacht-class avisos, and the two Meteor-class avisos" - I'd be tempted to lose the "the" before each class, because it kinda implies that you are referring back to vessels previously mentioned, which isn't the case. Does that make sense?
  • That works for me
• "Hela was, herself, sunk" - don't think those commas are needed personally
  • Removed
• "Greif was designed at a time where torpedoes had become" => "Greif was designed at a time when torpedoes had become"
  • Fixed
• That's all I've got. Great work and an interesting read on a topic I know little about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Chris. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting; sorry for the delay. --PresN 20:31, 18 December 2020 (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, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [15].[reply]

List of Xevious media[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most-beloved arcade games and most important titles in the scrolling shooter genre, Namco's Xevious become a cultural phenomenon since its debut in January 1983. In addition to laying the foundations for most other shooters since, Xevious was followed by merchandise, soundtrack albums, home conversions, and a series of sequels and re-imaginings that built on mechanics established in the original. While the series has yet to see a new installment since Xevious Resurrection in 2009, the game still remains an important and influential franchise in Namco's back catalog of properties.

This article is a comprehensive list of all Xevious sequels, spin-offs, and other related forms of media (such as soundtracks and films); all information here is cited from reliable sources. I had created this article way back in September of 2017, and to be blunt it was a poorly-created wreck of a page. Only now have I decided to get this article into shape and hopefully make it a Featured List. This is part of my goal in getting the entire Xevious series up to Good Topic status, which I hope to achieve some day. Thank you for reviewing! Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Link pachinko in the lead for those (including me) who have no idea what it is
• Notes which are complete sentences (eg the third and fourth against the original game) need full stops
• Link rail-shooter to explain that term
• Also, is it possible to clarify what a "flight yolk controller" is?
• "which was corrected" - as the subject of this clause is "issues", the "was" should be "were"
• "A 75-minute "gaiden" film" - link/explanation for "gaiden"?
• Think that's it from me. Great work overall :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues addressed. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Think you may have got a bit over-zealous with the full stop removal :-) "The Sharp X68000 version was produced by Dempa" for example, is a complete sentence and needs one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I tidied up the full stops and made a couple of other minor tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For FAC coordinators, I have chosen to retire from the site. Please close this nomination as soon as possible. Thanks. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 19:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @WP:FLC director and delegates: Pinging the delegates and directors to see your message. GamerPro64 22:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW I wouldn't mind taking this over for Namcokid if that's alright with the coords. I just don't want to see all their hard work go to waste. JOEBRO64 22:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • TheJoebro64 I'm fine with you adopting the nomination. Having said that, Namcokid47 I'm sorry to see you leave. Take care. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass Really sad to see Namcokid47 go... I have no idea how I missed the source review for this one, I'll do it in later today. Aza24 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 7 and 10 should be an ISBN 13 (use the converter)
• Would take out "United Kingdom" in ref 15 as it is the only location provided in all of the refs – otherwise all of the refs should have locations
• Translated title needed for ref 18
• ref 27 shouldn't be all caps per MOOS
• Wired link in 31
• translated title needed for ref 67
• GamePro link in 72
• Tokyo Broadcasting System
• That's all I got. Reliability looks fine. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy ping for @TheJoebro64: Aza24 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: I'll get through this later tonight. I'll send you a ping when it's done. JOEBRO64 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: all sorted out. JOEBRO64 01:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

• Add alt text to the logo to aid readers with vision impairments
• Xevious games have been ported to many consoles - the list shows that the games have been ported to PC and mobile phones as well
• The franchise currently contains twelve games - the word "currently" does not add anything
• Italicize Solvalou every time it is mentioned, per MOS:ITALIC
• labeled among the most important games of its kind - specify who is calling it this
• Produced as an upgrade kit for the original - what does this mean?
• Throughout the list, some annotations are written in a different format than the rest, such as "It is included as a hidden game" (rather than "Included as a...")
• 1986 – Family Computer, Arcade Arcade is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized when not the first word in a list item / sentence
• Link "plug'n play" to Handheld TV game
• Link "time attack" to Time attack#Video games
• If you want to keep the word gaiden, italicize it and add a brief explanation (something like ("side story") per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC
• I don't know if "computer-generated feature film" is a media type - I would consider "feature film" the media type, and describe the film as computer-generated in an annotation
• Like with gaiden, italicize pachinko (in the lead as well)
• Unsure if I think we should mention that Namco Sounds - Xevious is released through iTunes specifically, but if you want to do so, you should link to iTunes

Ping me when you have responded to the issues I brought up, and I will take another look.--Alexandra^IDV 13:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64 and Namcokid47: (notifying the nominators of my review)--Alexandra^IDV 13:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra IDV Issues addressed. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the issues I brought up have been addressed.--Alexandra^IDV 22:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47 as you're back and editing, do you wish to continue with this nom? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to get around to fixing this up further. I'll gladly take this off of Joebro's hands, if that's fine with him. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namcokid47 and TheJoebro64: Are either of you continuing with this nomination? --PresN 15:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PresN: Absolutely. I've been able to address concerns brought up by Alexandria IDV today. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Le Panini

@Namcokid47:So... is anyone gonna do anything here? It's just kinda been sitting here. I'll get to it: It's a list, so there isn't really that much to it compared to a standard article. A couple of tiny things:

• According to WP:LEDECITE, inline citation is neither required nor prohibited. The general rule however, is that certain info that's likey to be questioned should be cited; I don't really have anything to say for this, but I do think "soundtrack albums, pachinko machines, and an animated feature film produced by Groove Corporation" should have some citation.
  • I don't think it's needed. That info is based on the information in the list, which all have proper citations. I don't see the need to do it again.

Xevious (1983)

• Is there citation for the release year of the arcade machine? Everything else has a reference.
  • See comment below.
• Looking through, it seems all other references to the arcade machine don't have inline citation either. If there is, I'd link it (unless it goes against some MoS I'm missing) Le Panini ^Talk 14:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's fine to leave out a reference for the arcade game since the source for the release date is for the arcade version.

That's all fair. To be honest, what hasn't been covered already? It's a list after all. You have a Support from me. Le Panini ^[🥪] 10:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s?) from Aza24[edit]

@Namcokid47 and TheJoebro64: this nomination is by far the oldest at FLC, is there still interest on completing it? If so let me know and I will leave some comments ASAP. Le Panini may have further comments as well if anyone is still interested in working on this list. Aza24 (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, I never got any notification for their comments. I've addressed their concerns and am currently waiting for additional feedback. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 05:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:34, 16 December 2020 (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, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [16].[reply]

List of operas by Carl Maria von Weber[edit]

Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Maria von Weber, a tragically neglected composer, best known for his masterpiece Der Freischütz. His operatic output constituted a massive influence on the next generation of German composers, especially Richard Wagner, whose early operas were written in Weber's shadow. I believe this list meets the FLC criteria; it's accessible, fully sortable, and contains a thorough yet concise lead that effectively summarizes Weber's operatic career. Looking forward to any and all comments. Aza24 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Two fragments survive; was thought to be lost until 2000 where": I'm not sure I follow that. Were both lost? 2000 where, or 2000 when?
• FLC criteria:
• 1. I see Chris has covered the prose in the lead. The coding in the table (including the sorting) was tricky, and you did a good job with it.
• 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 problems (but this isn't a source review). No retrieval dates are needed (probably).
• 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.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Dank, just to keep you updated, I believe I've appropriately rephrased the line you mentioned. Best - Aza24 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this nomination! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to Support ~ HAL333 03:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references are well-formatted and reliable, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. My only citation-related complaint is that note n could probably use a source. If I'm reading the article correctly, reference 13 appears to be citing this exact fact in the lead, so you could just name the cite and use it in the note if that's the case. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Giants2008, I've added ref 13 to that note as you suggested. I also added refs to some others notes – just to be safe. Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good to me. With that, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smerus

• Being a boring stickler for clarity, I have to say I don't like the missing definitive articles in the lead.

• "German composer Carl Maria von Weber" → "The German composer Carl Maria von Weber" - otherwise it looks like you are distinguishing from, say "French composer Carl Maria von Weber" or "Estonian composer Carl Maria von Weber"......
• Similarly in para 2 should be "the 12-13 year old Weber"

• Agree completely, have adjusted

• Unfortunately the main Weber article is somewhat deficient (understatement). It mentions briefly (and I think this could be also mentioned in the lead for the List) Weber's study with Vogler (around 1810-12) and his subsequent friendship with Meyerbeer. On Weber's death his widow asked Meyerbeer to complete Die Drei Pintos. Meyerbeer never got round to it and eventually returned the ms. to Mrs. Weber with some financial compensation. That's why it wasn't completed until Mahler took it up.
  • Thanks for this clarification, definitely worth included – I've added more about his widow approached Meyerbeer and the Mahler completion. I opted to leave out the study with Volger and origin of his friendship with Meyerbeer since I think that may be too much detail for this article.
• Picture should have an alt text.
  • Done
• Otherwise seems fine to me -

Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments here Smerus, I've believed I've addressed the above. This list was a way for me to get more familiar with Weber's career/music, with a plan of eventually working on his article, which I agree is in a rather awful state...! Aza24 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, I'm very happy to support the nomination. Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

With the disclaimer that I'm not an expert in the field, just a few comments:

• His first four survive in various states: Die Macht der Liebe und des Weins (comp. 1798) is completely lost; --> that seems contradictory: if it is completely lost, can it be said to survive in any state?
  • Good point, changed to "exist" – which is perhaps more concise
• were all performed within his lifetime and survive intact, except Die drei Pintos which was posthumously completed by Gustav Mahler. --> perhaps rephrase so that the except clearly refers to performance and not survival
  • Done this I think
• 12–13 year old Weber began --> Bit odd. He was either 12 or 13 when he began. Is the range there because of uncertainty or because he studied at age 13 as well?
  • I thought it was unknown, but I checked and must have been wrong, changed to 13
• Steinberg or Steinsberg?
  • Good catch, fixed (Steinsberg)
• When in Stuttgart, Weber and Hiemer --> stylistically I would drop the "When in Stuttgart" bit. So many placenames already going around, needed for the performances, but not for where they worked on it, methinks. Just my opinion. Feel free to ignore.
  • Normally I would agree, but the idea here is to say that they had already begun work on a second work in Stuttgart, vs beginning Abu Hassan after Silvana had been performed
• Should Opera in Prague link to State Opera (Prague)?
  • I think it's Estates Theatre – linked
• in 1821 Berlin --> in 1821 in Berlin
  • Fixed
• massive acclaim --> not quite the right tone for Wikipedia I think
  • Changed to "extremely well received" – it's difficult to find the line between editorializing vs encyclopedic tone here as this premiere was extremely successful, and I've used the word "success" too much in the lead already :)
• Carl Von Weber --> von? (also in note p)
  • Fixed
• the only English libretto he ever set by James Planché --> a bit ambiguous: did he set German ones by Planché?
  • Have rephrased here, meant to say that this is the only English Libretto Weber set
• The work received much acclaim and Weber died in London less than two months later. --> I would split this into 2 sentences.
  • Agreed – fixed
• Morgan (2017, p. 14) lists it as a singspiel --> elsewhere it is Singspiel with a capital
  • I have no idea, Warrack does a capital and does Brown – leaning towards sticking with capital to match the other genres
• Source spot check mostly fine, just a few questions:
• Warrack's list starts with Waldmädchen, not Die Macht der Liebe und des Weins. Should there be a footnote explaining this?
  • Perhaps... I've checked Warrack on google books, and rather awkwardly, for some reason, it is no longer giving me a preview of the pages in question. Does Warrack give any reasoning for this that you can see?
    • On page 379 the chapter "List of works" simply starts with Waldmädchen (try this link [17]). No explanation. If I search the book for "Weins" the only hits are on page 32, 33 and 409. But page 32 clearly confirms Die Macht der Liebe und des Weins was the first opera and that it was lost. Simply odd that Warrack does not start page 379 with it. Anyway, it's fine. No footnote needed I think.
• You have Der Freischütz as Kind after Apel, but Warrack has "Apel and Laun"
  • Ugh, how do I miss these things. Fixed.

Otherwise looks fine to me. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Edwininlondon: Your comments here are exceptionally helpful, thank you! I believe I have addressed the above, except one thing it. Happy to discuss anything further. Best - Aza24 (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. I'm happy to support the nomination, it meets the FL criteria. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:34, 16 December 2020 (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, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [18].[reply]

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1949[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again y'all :-) With 58 of these lists now promoted to FL, here's the next in the series. This year was notable for Hank Williams gaining his first chart-topper. His recording career was short because his lifestyle contributed to an early death at the age of just 29, but he is regarded as one of the single most important figures in country music history. As ever, all feedback will be gratefully received and promptly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this nomination! Should the "juke box" be "jukebox"? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard wrote it as two words so that is what I have gone with, I presume this was the standard usage in the era in question..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shipshape as usual. ~ HAL333 01:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing list. I can't find any faults --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

• I see no reliabillity issues
• Does the "PA42–43" mean something special in ref 28?
• Aha! I have caught your most grievous blunder yet. Tremble in fear for what you are about to read. You link Whitburn in ref 2, but not ref 1... for consistency you can either link the name only in ref 1 (as the first mention), link every time, or not at all – you had three options but you still messed up. Shame! :)
• On a serious note it would make sense to link his name every time since that's what you do with Allmusic; University of Arkansas Press may be worth a link as well
• Formatting looks good otherwise... Aza24 (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, thanks for your comments! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - everything looks good. (And I could have sworn I had posted a comment in support of this nomination already, but I guess not? Perhaps something happened while I was attempting to save that edit...)--Alexandra^IDV 07:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:34, 16 December 2020 (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, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Dimple Kapadia filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. A well-known Indian film actress who was recently seen in Christopher Nolan's Tenet. People might not know but she has quite a career behind her, and here it is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "She was launched by Raj Kapoor at age 14" - not keen on this wording, maybe change "launched" to "discovered"
• "Kapadia retired from acting following her marriage to Indian actor Rajesh Khanna earlier in the same year" - not 100% clear (to me at least) which year is being referred to (I had to look at her own article to see when she actually got married), so I would change to "earlier in 1973"
• "The early roles she played since her return" => "The early roles she played following her return"
• In the table, characters with a surname should sort based on that
• Think that's it from me - good work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thanks a lot for your comments. All done - prose suggestions applied, and all character names in table sorted. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Add alt text for the image.
• If possible, please add any recent image of Kapadia.
• "Her role as a Christian teenager from Goa established her as a youth fashion icon and her performance won her the Filmfare Award for Best Actress." It's clear that the role earned her that Filmfare. So why not remove the "her performance" bit from the sentence?
• At ref 13, NDTV.com --> NDTV

That's it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yashthepunisher: Thank you, all comments addressed - newer image added as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work! Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the table section: Feroz Khan, and Abhishek Sharma need to be linked to the correct page.
• In both films she played women → In both films, she
• specially → especially
• Are any better lead images? Headshots
• Per this, table captions should be included using Template:Sronly, for example, |+ ((sronly|Example table caption))

• I have only seen one of her film Dil Chahta Hai; she was okay, great film though. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Thank you for your comments. All applied except for the image - the only headshot available already appears in the Kapadia article itself. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MSG17

• Pati Parmeshwar is linked to the concept instead of the film.
• Next, Pyar Ke Naam Qurbaan is out of order if the date of 1989 is correct, as it is sandwiched between two 1990 films. However, the article states that the film was actually released in early 1990. Please resolve this discrepancy.
• The articles for sources should be linked consistently. For example, Bollywood Hungama should be linked in all citations that use it.
• For Bumiller's citation, it doesn't make sense to link one page when you have cited multiple pages from the work. Remove that from the original citation in the bibliography and, if possible, link page 186 in the sfn ref to maintain consistency.

Overall, I have to say you've done a great job with this. I didn't know about her career's trajectory (or that she appeared in Tenet) and found this to be a rather interesting dive into that. Thanks for all the work you've put in. MSG17 (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @MSG17: Thanks a lot for your comments, and I'm glad you find this interesting. I've applied all your comments, fixed the links and the technicality. Since linking all publishers in citations is not obligatory per MOS:DL, I kept just the first link for each publication. As for the Bumiller work, I've removed the link from the sfn to make it consistent with the other sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great! I fixed the page thing on the root citation myself. Although publication links do have to be repeated for sortable table entries (as you don't know what order the user will see them in), you have already linked all that were used multiple times in the lead, so I withdraw that objection. Support MSG17 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

• To start on somewhat superficial note, I like the image selected for the lead. There is something visually pleasing about the composition to me, and I think it shows more personality than a closer head-shot. For the image caption, would it be possible to add the location/event the photograph was taken as it would be helpful to provide further context rather than just the year?
• For this part, who assigned her the title role in his teen romance, I am uncertain about the "assigned" word choice. I more so associated that word with a school assignment rather than a job. Maybe something like "hired" would be better in this context?
• For this part, following her separation from Khanna, I would replace "following" with something like "after" since you use "following" in a previous part of the same sentence.
• I would link professional mourner to help with readers who are not familiar with the concept.
• I am uncertain about using "the latter" in this part, the latter of which, since I have only seen it used for lists of two items and not for more than that.
• For this part, was cast by Christopher Nolan in his action thriller Tenet, do you mean that Nolan himself handpicked her for the film? If so, it needs a citation to support. If not, then I think it would be more helpful to the reader to replace this part with something about her character in the film as done in previous parts of the lead.
• I do not think the semi-colon in the table are used correctly. I would instead use a comma to say Voice, animated film.

Since this FLC has already received a substantial amount of commentary (and support) from experienced reviewers, my comments are mostly nit-picks. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. You've done a wonderful job with the prose as this is one of the few Wikipedia filmographies that actually makes me want to check out some of her films. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? It is about a completely different topic (being about music rather than film), but I always appreciate getting an outsider's perspective to insure that the article can be understood by unfamiliar readers. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi there, thank you for your comments. I've addressed all your comments, "assigned" was changed to "gave" because "hired" makes less sense in this context, in my opinion. Other than that, all applied, source added where asked. Will read the Candy article, interesting. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Source reliability seems okay throughout, and the link-checker shows no problems. One small formatting issue should be taken care of: the Simha book needs an en dash for the year range in its title. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Thanks for your review. The issue with said source is now fixed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:34, 16 December 2020 (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, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Dayahang Rai filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dayahang Rai is a Nepali actor. He has appeared in more than 40 films to date. Some of his well-known films includes Loot, Kabaddi, Talakjung vs Tulke, Kabaddi Kabaddi, White Sun, and Loot 2 ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked the links in the second and third columns in the table. The coding in the table seems fine. I added ((sronly|Films)) as a table caption.
• 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 apparently reliable sources (I can't read some of them), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any 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.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ HAL333 23:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistent retrieval dates (thank you!)
• "The Kathmandu Post. Kathmandu." for ref 9 but just "The Kathmandu Post." for the others?
• Reliabillity looks fine, found no other formatting issues.
• Pass for source review with the expectation that the minor point above will be addressed. Best - Aza24 (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:34, 16 December 2020 (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) 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) [21].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Belarus[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus has four sites on the list and five tentative sites. The article follows the standard style for WHS. The sources for last site are messy, apparently the UNESCO site needs some cleaning, but it is possible to figure out what it is about. The lists for Sweden and the Netherlands are still running at the moment but they have decent support at this point so I am adding a new nom. Tone 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great work! ----Wright Streetdeck 10:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "This is also the only natural site in Belarus" => "This is the only natural site in Belarus"
• " the Struve Geodetic Arc is also transnational site" => " the Struve Geodetic Arc is also a transnational site"
• "were inviting artists, craftsmen, and architects" => "invited artists, craftsmen, and architects"
• "These interactions helped transmitting" => "These interactions helped transmit"
• The first sentence under the Augustow Canal is incredibly long and confusing - can you break it up?
• "This nomination is considering" - this should really be "considers" rather than "in considering", but I actually think that "covers" would be a more appropriate verb
• "In 17th and 18th centuries" => "In the 17th and 18th centuries"
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you! --Tone 20:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Pass – reliability and formatting is good. Mostly reliant on UNESCO sources as is standard for UNESCO lists. Aza24 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this article is about to become an excellent example of how short articles can pass the FL criteria. The article is so well-made, interesting, and "comprehensiveness" and is overall just fantastic. Great work on improving it! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Avoid one-sentence paragraphs, as in the lead. Otherwise the list is ready for featured status. HĐ (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Tone 17:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work, HĐ (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2020 (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) 22:11, 13 December 2020 (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) 00:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC) [22].[reply]

List of What Would You Do? episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets FL criteria. It shows all the episodes in the series, shows valuable information that could be valuable to the reader, and has a graph/ratings section that adds to its notability. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One more query - you say that the anniversary special "featur[ed] scenarios from Primetime: What Would You Do? and season one", but earlier you said it was known as P:WWYD for its first five seasons, so the sentence as written doesn't really make sense. I presume that by "Primetime: What Would You Do?" you mean segments which originally aired as part of Primetime? Might need a re-word to make that clear..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When appearing as segments for Primetime, the segments were called Primetime: What Would You Do?. When the show became its own show, the series was still called Primetime: What Would You Do?. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that, but saying "P:WWYD and season one" doesn't work, because the first five seasons (including season one) were all called P:WWYD. You probably need to change it to "featuring scenarios originally aired on Primetime and in season one" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have done as requested. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

I will get to this eventually (so many sources!) but for now you should add a project(s) banner to the talk page of the article. Probably Wikiproject lists and the American Television task force (they're used in this page if that helps) Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Sorry about the wait. Comments:[reply]

• A lot of missing retrieval dates. You can see which ones are missing by doing command/control f "Retrieved"
  • Retrieval dates aren't that necessary as the only ones missing them have an "archived from the original on" date. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 17:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• refs 8 and 10 should not be in all caps per MOS (even if the original titles are)
  • Fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 17:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Your Entertainment Now" does not look like a reliable source at first glance but it looks like it sources reliable statistical information itself, so I think it's admissible.
• Some of the TV by the Numbers refs are missing archive links, and because of this are not linking to the appropriate page, by extension not sourcing the appropriate information. Refs 78 and 77 for example, though there is probably more
  • Not much you can do about that. The site was deleted and some of the pages were never archived. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 17:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sympathize with your predicament, but if the link does not provide the information it sources, that is the equivalent to not having a ref at all. You're going to have to look for another source, or double check for archive links. Aza24 (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Aza24: Every non-archived page that I could find a replacement for has been replaced. These replacements include links to websites such as The Futon Critic and TV Series Finale, which they themselves can't be archived but can be used. The only page I couldn't find a replacement for was the season 10 episode that aired on July 10, 2015. I will continue looking for a replacement for that one, but once again, I have replaced the rest. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate your diligence! Sorry if my points were tedious, that's just the nature of source reviews. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure if there is much of a point in linking "Showbuzz Daily" since it goes to the same place as the author, but it's not a huge deal

Your Entertainment Now[edit]

• So as it turns out, Your Entertainment Now refs (10-34) posted days after the WWYD? episode aired are actually listing "Fast Nationals", which are estimates. I am currently swaping them for the actual SD+ ratings that are posted on the same website, one week after. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed them. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Birdienest81[edit]

• One minor thing, but not really a big deal: It would be better to de-italicize the titles of most of your sources since they are not magazines or periodicals. You could move it from the rename the field in your citations from "website=" to "publisher=" or agency=".

• @Birdienest81: I have done as requested. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 21:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Sorry about the delay. Nevertheless, good work.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis[edit]

Great work, I have just a few suggestions.

• In the lead, I would specify American Broadcasting Company, because ABC could also refer to Australian Broadcasting Corporation for AUS readers.

• Changed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

• In the first paragraph, after "created by Chris Whipple", could there be a brief description of the show's premise? All we know is that it's a hidden camera series.

• Added a one-sentence summary. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

• "Guest-less era" - this could be simplified to "an era without guests".

• Changed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

• The viewership is all sourced excellently - is there any way of referencing the episode airdates? Even broadly?

• References containing the episode's viewership also contain airdates. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

• For the episodes with titles, maybe use "Title" instead of "Rtitle"?

• Changed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

Thanks, SatDis (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: I have added comments. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Fantastic. Thanks for addressing those suggestions. I support this nomination. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some feedback at my Featured list review, which is also an episode list. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2020 (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) 22:06, 13 December 2020 (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) 00:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC) [23].[reply]

List of Odonata species of Slovenia[edit]

Nominator(s): — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A comprehensive and, to the best of my knowledge, complete list, I believe it meets FL criteria. I thought that local vernacular names could be appropriate for such a list, but I can replace them with English ones in case commenters disagree. Adding English vernacular names is also an option. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from N Oneemuss[edit]

• I don't think species needs a link
• Does the local odonatological society have a name?
• You could add an interlanguage link to Boštjan Kiauta (like this: Boštjan Kiauta [sl])
• "The distribution of Odonata in Slovenia is now fairly well known by international standards, with Slovenia having been one of the first European countries for which a full account of faunistical data (an "atlas") was published." - source?
• A map of Slovenia, or the location of Slovenia in Europe, might be nice, especially since you talk about how it is on the junction of several ecoregions
• "faunistical" is a really obscure word (neither Google's dictionary nor Wiktionary recognise it); maybe replace it?
• "Slovene fauna of Odonata is considered highly diverse" sounds a little odd to me grammatically
• You are inconsistent as to whether you give Slovene names, eg you do for Red list of Odonata and Ordinance on protected native species of animals but not for Atlas of the Dragonflies (Odonata) of Slovenia or Centre for Cartography of Fauna and Flora
• I think you should give English vernacular names; these are probably more useful to the average reader, and matches similar featured lists such as List of amphibians of Bulgaria or List of mammals of Korea. I think keeping or getting rid of the Slovene names would both be fine.
• "C. parvidens and C. viridis are difficult to distinguish, and were split only in 1997." - source?
• "Do we know when Coenagrion mercuriale was last seen in Slovenia?
• Fiesa is a disambiguation link.
• The icons showing the IUCN status are quite small, and the NE icon is hard to read because the colours are similar.
• Škocjanski zatok nature reserve could have an interlanguage link as well Škocjanski zatok [sl]
• The word "recent" should be avoided because it can become outdated; it would be better to give a year (this applies to the last section on excluded species)
• The vernacular names of the excluded species could be given as well
• Sources in a non-English language should have that specified in the reference (e.g. Cite journal has a |language= parameter)

That's all I can think of for now. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 13:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 20:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 02:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments are welcome. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine in the table and below, where I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. Note: I skipped my usual copyediting in the lead. The coding in the table seems fine. I added ((sronly|Damselflies (Zygoptera))) and ((sronly|Dragonflies (Anisoptera))) as table captions. Table captions are now required by a recent RFC; the "sronly" means that they will only be visible to screen readers.
• 2. The lead defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to apparently reliable sources (I can't read some of them), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any 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. The images are excellent. (Your approach reminds me of the approach I took in my lists, which you might enjoy reviewing.)
• 6. It is stable.
• Support (but note that I haven't copyedited the main text). Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellent work. A month ago, when I first checked (but did not comment), I saw some issues with the table, but they have now been fixed. A comment someone may rise relates to WP:MOSALT, but I don't know how helpful a description "A dragonfly with black and yellow stripes sitting on a finger/grass/twig" is. I was asked to provide those at WHS nominations, and it made more sense there. --Tone 08:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• Reference reliability looks fine.
• For references 2 and 3, the major sources of the table's content, no page numbers have been provided. I did a source review for one recent plant FL in which the genus names were alphabetized in the book, so readers wanting to verify content would have an easy time finding the right pages without needing numbers. Do these books list species by alphabetical order or another methods easy for potential readers to use? If so, I think we're okay as is, as they will be easy enough to find. If not, it's asking a lot of readers to go through the book blindly searching for relevant pages, and I'd recommend citing specific page numbers for each species in that case.
  • Page numbers are all over the place, so there is no simple way of including them. The reader can easily find species descriptions by consulting the subject index.
• While on the subject of formatting, reference 2 could use a Slovenian language indicator like a few of the other cites use.
  • Like explained above, ref 2 is both in Slovene and English, so the indicator would be misleading.
• The link-checker tool is having problems accessing references 4 and 5. Please double-check those to make sure they are working Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed one of the links, the others are working. Thanks for the review. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:32, 10 December 2020 (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) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (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, 14 December 2020 (UTC) [24].[reply]

List of Burnley F.C. managers[edit]

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This time I'm nominating quite a small list about Burnley Football Club's managers. Other similar FL were used as a benchmark. I'm looking forward to all feedback/reviews. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 04:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources both look okay, and the link-checker tool didn't reveal any issues. I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:30, 9 December 2020 (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) 22:22, 13 December 2020 (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) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC) [25].[reply]

List of plant genus names (D–K)[edit]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My other list that's currently at FLC is List of plant genus names (L–P), and John has one up at List of plant genus names (A–C). This list should match the format of those two and, to some extent, our previous two lists. Enjoy! Shouts as usual to PresN (the 3rd and 4th columns), John and the Graphics Lab folks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Justus Heurnius (b. 1587), Dutch missionar and plant collectory" - I think that Y is on the end of the wrong word......
• Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Nice work! ~~ Medusa^talk 12:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks up to your usual standard. ~ HAL333 01:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks kindly, Chris, Medusa and Hal, and let me know if I can help with anything. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Source reliability looks impeccable, and I ran a token check on the one link, which works fine and supports the opening sentence more than adequately. The formatting looks fine as well; the page number thing threw me for a loop at first, but the explanation in the note makes sense. I'm calling the source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 2 December 2020 (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) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (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, 7 December 2020 (UTC) [26].[reply]

List of Burnley F.C. seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another list I'm nominating about association football club Burnley F.C.. Every season the club has played is presented in a statistical manner, including division, cup competitions, other competitions, top scorers and avg. attendance. Other similar FL were used as a benchmark. I'm looking forward to all feedback/reviews. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 37 missing retrieval date
  • Added WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all I got, pass for source review since this isn't enough to not warrant one. Do add a retrieval date for that one when you get a chance though. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aza24 Thank you for again taking up the source review, it's much appreciated! I added an access date to ref 37. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

• " first match on 10 August." add year, shouldn't assume the first match occurred in the same year as the foundation.

  Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "there was no league football," link league football.

  Done; relocated the wikilink that was further down the prose. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Burnley area.[3] Burnley turned" repetitive.

  Reworded. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The team have played in one of the four professional levels of English football from 1888 to the present day" odd phrasing for me, I guess what you're saying is that the club has played professionally since 1888? Or "in the top four tiers of English football".

  I meant the latter, changed now. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Burnley are one of only five teams (and were the second) to have " I'd have that the other way round, i.e. "Burnley were the second, and one of only five ever..." or similar.

  Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "As at the end" to my ear, this should be "As of the end..." BritEng.

  Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " 57 seasons in the top division of English football, 46 in the second, 11 in the third, and seven " 7

  Amended. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ave attend -> Ave. attend.

  Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorting the table by goals has three different outcomes which is weird.

  There are indeed three outcomes when sorting the stats in the table: 1) By order of season (from earliest to latest), 2) From high to low, 3) From low to high. But isn't that the right way? Readers can see the stats from both sides (2 and 3), and can return to the default setting (1), so there are only two "new" sortings. Looking at other similar lists, they all have three different outcomes when sorting the table. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact sorting by any heading apart from Season seems to have three outcomes. What's the deal?

  See above. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What does italics mean in the table? And is that MOS:ACCESS?

  Added the needed information in the key section. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a real quick pass, sorry but it's getting late. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Thank you for taking a look and for reviewing in the late evening! I've amended and responded to the points above. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]