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) 12:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of WNBA seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 03:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago, I was puzzled to find that this list had no lead nor citations, so I took it upon myself to improve it to a good standard despite my relative lack of knowledge about basketball. In time for the 29th WNBA season, I present a list that I think is now worthy of featured status, and has been crafted by looking at works best in other FLs about sports league seasons. SounderBruce 03:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

As of the 28th season in 2024, each team plays 40 games during the regular season, which runs from May to September and includes a month-long break for the 2024 Summer Olympics that begins after the annual WNBA All-Star Game. This sentence is a bit odd given that the olympics aren't there every year. Maybe split into two? Nice improvement otherwise, especially since it was in just two days. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and fixed that; once the 2025 schedule is released, I'll make it more clear that the Olympic breaks are a quadrennial thing. SounderBruce 05:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

• Lead image could stand to be larger
  • Made it a bit bigger.
• "due to expansion and contractions" - one is singular, the other is plural....?
  • Fixed.
• "the first expansion teams were added in 1998 and followed by" => "the first expansion teams were added in 1998 and were followed by"
  • Fixed.
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review! I've made the three changes you suggested. SounderBruce 09:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Notes:

• Ref 2 and 7 need |url-access=subscription
• Have you considered running iabot bot to archive the links?
• Could you add a wikilink to the first occurrence in the references for Basketball-Reference.com?

Source review: Pending

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good otherwise though, great job SounderBruce! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added "access=limited" to the NY Times and Washington Post sources since they do sometimes show those articles for free (hence why I was able to use them without a subscription). Added the link for B-R.com as well. I'll run IAbot in a few days once the IA crawler finishes archiving some of these sources, since it is probably too soon. SounderBruce 04:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctor Who

• The NBA version of this article exists at List of National Basketball Association seasons. Is there a reason that this article isn't at List of Women's National Basketball Association seasons or that the former isn't at List of NBA seasons? I won't oppose the article because of this, I'm just genuinely curious for consistency purposes.
  • WNBA is the more common name for the league, and the article was already at this title; since it also matches the season article format, I think it fits better than the long-form (and perhaps the NBA ones should be moved to match).
• "As of the 28th season in 2024, each team plays" -> "As of the 2024 WNBA season each team plays"; just for consistency, all of the other seasons are written in this format, it feels weird that you refer to this season as the 28th when none of the other are referred to as the 1st, 15th, etc.
  • Would prefer to keep this, as the number of years since the first season isn't explicitly stated elsewhere.
• "Following the change in NBA ownership in 2002, the WNBA lost two teams; the league later lost two teams by 2006 but expanded to remain at 13 teams." I'd split this sentence at the semicolon and start a new sentence after, the part that reads "the WNBA lost two teams; the league later lost two teams by 2006" tripped me up at first.
  • Fixed.
• "Teams play four games against opponents in the same conference and two teams from the other conference and three games against the remaining four teams.", remaining four teams from what? There's only two conferences and those are already mentioned.
  • Split, but the "other conference" was supposed to cover both.
• "an in-season tournament first played in 2021" -> "an in-season tournament first played in 2021", linking the specific page for that cup
  • Added, but in a shorter form.
• "who have each won four WNBA champions" -> "who have each won four WNBA championships"
  • Fixed.
• I would consider renaming the "List" header "WNBA Seasons" and then using ((Screen reader-only)) to hide the table caption
  • Added the hidden caption and changed the header to just "Seasons".
• ((TBA)) can be used to fill in the empty gaps for the 2024 season at the end of the table, it feels a little strange to have empty cells
  • Used ((n/a)) instead to not add too much color to the table.
• "Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020" -> "Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on basketball, the 2020", a more specific link seems like it would be helpful here given that the WNBA is mentioned in the second linked article
  • Linked to the article, but would prefer to keep the pipe short.
• ESPN should be linked in references 6, 14
• The Athletic should be linked in references 9, 12, 20, 21
• The Seattle Times should be linked in reference 16
• USA Today should be linked in reference 17
• The Guardian should be linked in reference 22
• Women's National Basketball Association should be linked in reference 25
• USA Today should be linked in reference 50
• Las Vegas Review-Journal should be linked in reference 54
• Building on the above, Basketball-Reference.com can be linked in all sources that use it (Per MOS:REFLINK "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article", for all the above)
  • I prefer not to repeat links in the citations section, mainly to help save readers from the sea of blue that would result. My reading of MOS:REFLINK says that it's fine either way (as long as it's consistent).
• ((Official website)) is available if you want it, its optional not a make or break for me
  • Don't think it's necessary in this case.

Great work on the list! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed them above and made several changes. SounderBruce 08:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfies me, the references weren't a huge issue for me either, and the quoted part of the guideline leaves it up to personal preference. Support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:21, 21 February 2024 (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) 12:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be of featured list quality. This is the 13th featured list I've been involved in at FLC and the third first-round pick list. This list was re-done based on the recently promoted List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks (promoted in December). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

• Link San Francisco 49ers on first instance.
• Is there a reason why Season, Pick, Position, and College table heading titles aren't included in the key/legend box as with the Detroit Lions list? I think for consistency with the FL format, perhaps it is worth adding that too. (totally independent of this review, but the Chicago Bears list might also benefit from the same, if not too much work).
• Optional : any more notable drafted players with image(s) that can be included?
• That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: I've linked to the team on the first instance. I actually removed that portion of the key (season, pick, position, and college) from the Chicago list because Gonzo Fan2007 made a good argument that those portions of the table were self explanatory and didn't really need to be included in the key. I've removed it from the Lions list and the other several first-round draft pick lists I've been working on. I've also added more images to the list. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this list! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification. Changes look good and happy to support on prose.Pseud 14 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

• In addition to the above......
• "The 49ers have drafted at first overall" - maybe this is an American usage I am not familiar with, but to me "The 49ers have drafted first overall" sounds more natural
• "one of whom, Lance Alworth" => "one of these, Lance Alworth" (using "whom" doesn't work after a semi-colon)
• One the 2008 row, the final punctuation mark is after the footnote. It should be before it.
• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude, I've implemented all of your suggestions. As for the "American usage", I wouldn't know, I'm Canadian! I think it was just a mistaken word left in at one point. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

• of the National Football Conference (NFC) in the NFC West division. - could you change this to of the West Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) so we don't duplicate NFC so close to each other?
• In the sentence about the gold rush, you could add that they were founded by Tony Morabito, which would already be cited to the 49ers source.
• three times and selected Harry Babcock in 1953, Dave Parks in 1964, and Alex Smith in 2005. -> three times, selecting Harry Babcock in 1953, Dave Parks in 1964, and Alex Smith in 2005.
• At the end of the lead, about Lance Alworth, maybe replace "instead" with and never played for the 49ers.
• Agree with the above about adding maybe a few more photos down the right side.
• I'm not seeing the benefit to using an abbreviation for "Position". For our readers, wouldn't it just be easier to spell it out?
• In the See also section, I think the head coaches list and the seasons list are too tangential to be included. The history and draft history articles should suffice
• Leo Nomellini is a duplicate link in the lead
• Source review:
  • Except as noted below, references are to reliable sources, are consistently formatted and properly cite the information provided.
  • Spot checks:
    • What makes DAZN.com a reliable source for football information?
    • Just a recommendation, but add "San Francisco 49ers" to "Team Facts" in Ref 5
    • Ref 37, 40, and 44 need the "url-access" field added « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for the review @Gonzo fan2007! I've implemented most of your suggestions, and to address a few points...

  • of the National Football Conference (NFC) in the NFC West division. - could you change this to of the West Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) so we don't duplicate NFC so close to each other? – I understand what you mean by this. I'd prefer to include some of mention that it's the "NFC West" instead of "Western Division" because it is the division's actual name. I also think the capitalization of "Division" and "Western" there could be up for debate. Do you have a suggestion on how to better include the division name, or you think I should just bite the bullet and go for western division instead?

  • I don't feel strongly either way. The NFC West article notes that its full name is "National Football Conference – Western Division", so there is some precedence (I cant tell if that is cited somewhere tho). I'll leave it to you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why am I overcomplicating this? I need to just do what the San Francisco 49ers page does for their division. That article wikilink NFC West to "Western division".Hey man im josh (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not seeing the benefit to using an abbreviation for "Position". For our readers, wouldn't it just be easier to spell it out? – My goal with abbreviation the position column was to make the table smaller and more compact for those on mobile. It's not much, but I noticed it helped a bit on my phone.

  • I guess, but at least on my mobile view I can't click on the abbreviation for the tooltip, so kind of defeats the purpose. I feel like it would be better to just spell it out. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone ahead and done so. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the See also section, I think the head coaches list and the seasons list are too tangential to be included. The history and draft history articles should suffice – I'd argue the seasons list should be included in the see also based on the past seasons impacting the draft picks that one gets, but I do see your point about head coaches. Do you think, based on that logic, it's relevant enough for inclusion?

  • It's up to you. I definitely don't think the head coaches list is relevant. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed head coaches. Perhaps I was just doing so because I had the set of 3 (head coaches, seasons, and first-round picks) together in my mind. I've removed head coaches.

  • The NFL is heavily involved with DAZN, including recently agreeing to a 10-year partnership with them last year. DAZN is responsible for the the live streams associated with the NFL Game Pass and NFL RedZone broadcasting. They are, as far as I'm aware, a reputable streaming service who are involved in a wide variety of sports. Given their long-term partnership with the NFL, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume an explanation of the conferences and divisions of the NFL, as well as a mention of the AFL being the NFL's direct competitor prior to the merger, is reliable. I'd understand questioning them if it was a more in-depth subject, but this is more or less a surface level explanation of some of the basics of the NFL which is something I'd expect to be accurate given the context of the NFL and DAZN's partnership.

  • Ok fair enough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll make adjustments based on your replies :) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope I've addressed everything. Thanks again for the review @Gonzo fan2007:!Hey man im josh (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - Source Review Passed « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Dylan620

I'll try to do an image review when I get home from work. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 15:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as promised. This is my first time doing one, so bear with me :)

• All images are licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons, and they contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
• Captions are excellent, with well-written prose and adequate sourcing.
• All images have descriptive alt text. My only suggestion is that I think it may be helpful to describe the colors of the uniforms, but that is coming from someone who does not have much familiarity with the topic area.
• Each image is well-positioned. I like how there's something of a train that initially runs alongside the right edge of the main table.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Thank you so much for the review! I think describing the colours isn't particularly useful in this context and if I started describing colours I'm not sure where it'd be best to stop. I believe, without the colours, the description of being in the team's uniform should be adequate. My goal was to describe what's in the photos with the thought in mind that further elaboration could be sought out if necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: No problem! That sounds reasonable enough to me, and it felt a little bit like a nitpick anyway. I'm comfortable supporting on images. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 03:21, 21 February 2024 (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) 12:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of primates[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 04:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the final monkey FLC, everyone, #6 in the order Primates and #35 overall for mammals for our perpetual series: the order capstone list! I had to take a short break from FLC to rewrite list of lemuroids, which was already an (old) FL so it wasn't brought here when I finished. It had to be done, though, not least because I needed all those citations for this list! This one is a capstone list, summarizing the 81 genera (and 502 species!) of the 6 sublists (and 9 families) in the mammal order Primates. In this, it follows the prior FLs for list of carnivorans (capstone to the 9 sublists of Carnivora), list of artiodactyls (capstone to the 4 sublists of Artiodactyla), and list of lagomorphs (capstone to the 2 sublists of Lagomorpha). This list is pushing the limits of the format, not because there's so many table rows but because there's waaay too many references. As in "the page stopped rendering" too many, and I had to do some dicing and condensing to get it all to fit, and the reference list is still the majority of the page length. Regardless, all of the monkeys are in there, so thanks for reviewing! --PresN 04:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In two places you use "primates is" - is this correct on the grounds that primates is being used here as a proper noun and not a plural (or something).....?

• Yeah, the name of the order is annoying, but capital-P Primates is a singular noun like Carnivora, while lowercase-p primates is a plural noun like monkeys or dogs.

• "these families are divided between two named suborders and are grouped in those suborder" - last word should be plural, I think

• Done

• "Diet: Leaves and forbs, as well as roots, corms, tubers and rhizomes" - I would link forbs, corms, tubers and rhizomes, as I am not sure these are widely-known terms

• Done, as well as a couple others later on.

• I haven't done a formal source review, but there's a couple of Harv errors showing

• How are you seeing those? Not seeing anything in the article itself, though it wouldn't surprise me.

• I see this:
  
  -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Ah, I had two names for the same book citation. Fixed, and added the harv reference error script so I can spot them next time. --PresN 13:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, is it a script? I lose track of what is a script and what comes "out of the box" :-) Anyway, support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all I got - fantastic work!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thanks, replied inline! --PresN 02:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AK

Very long list, loading the refs took a full 10 seconds.

• For Semnopithecus, you have "Size range:...(Black-footed gray langur) to...(Black-footed gray langur)", the two should be merged. Also, I wonder if you need to mention the species at all, since in the circepithecoid list, you use this exact same size range for all Semnopithecus langurs, citing Walker's Primates of the World.

• Fixed. --PresN 12:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Will drop by with more comments later. AryKun (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "from the Margot Marsh's mouse lemur" Margot Marsh is a name, so the "the" before it is unnecessary.
• "Southeast Asia and in a variety" Maybe replace the "and" with a comma.
• "saki monkeys and marmosets and tamarins" to "saki monkeys, marmosets, and tamarins"?
• "Lemuroidea...family Lorisidae" This portion is hard to read. Maybe instead of commas, you should just list the families and have the common names in parentheses next to the scientific name.
• "as being made extinct" to "as having gone extinct", I remember discussing this in a previous FLC, but can't recall exactly which one.
• "family are cercopithecids" to "family are called cercopithecids"?
• Yeah, that's all I got. Didn't really pore over the tables because I'd like to preserve my sanity, but nothing seems too off at a glance. AryKun (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• {[re|AryKun)) All done, I think. --PresN 01:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support everything else looks great, nice job! AryKun (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger

Oh wow. Big list. And nice work on the lemuroids, too. Anyway, I couldn't find anything wrong (and I did look through the tables) so Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a little sketchy. But! Giants is out for the next couple of months, this nomination is almost 3 months old and hasn't had a comment for a month, and the references were all taken from previously reviewed lists. So... promoting my own nom, I guess. --PresN 03:21, 21 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of Hot Black Singles number ones of 1987[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 45th nomination in this series, and one thing we can learn here is that if you wanted to top the Hot Black Singles chart in 1987, having the surname Jackson was definitely a step in the right direction..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud[edit]

• The following week it was replaced by "Control" -- comma after the following week
• I think we can remove the enclosure in featuring Siedah Garrett
• Perhaps there's a way to include Michael to refer to his singles that also topped the Hot 100 "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" and "Bad", since the other singles mention the artists as well. (although these are extremely popular songs)
• That's all from me. Great work on this series as ever! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your comments. All done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Nice to see that some very familiar tunes (dominated by the Jacksons) topped the chart from the year I was born, so this one's special :D. Btw, If you have time and interest, back here with a current FLC and would appreciate your feedback. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Source review: Passed
  • External link checker shows all references are up (except for the 1 properly marked as down which includes an archive link)
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 8 sources match what they are being cited for

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed

Looks good! The only thing I'd suggest is just removing "Billboard.com – " from the title in ref 10. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - I made that change -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support only saw a couple commas that needed moving around, which i did myself. AryKun (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 03:21, 21 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five years ago, I nominated List of Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame inductees for FLC which failed because the prose was very short. I merged that article with Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame, expanded the prose, and am ready to tackle on any comments for this list Erick (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The hall of fame was conceived by Child after realizing he was" => "The hall of fame was conceived by Child after he realized that he was"
• "to be inducted into Songwriters Hall of Fame" => "to be inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame"
• "16 years prior its conception" => "16 years prior to its conception"
• "selected by its committee of music professions" => "selected by its committee of music professionals"
• There's a random space between the two refs at the end of the first paragraph
• "After a two year absence" => "After a two-year absence"
• Something seems to be wrong with the 2014, 2015 and 2016 entries in the posthumous inductees table, as if I sort on any other column and then re-sort on year, an additional blank row appears for each year
• "The La Musa Honorees was only presented" - "honorees" is plural so not appropriate to use a singular verb
• In the "previously nominated" table, I would be tempted to put the number of nominations column before the year and also maybe rename it to "No. of noms." as "NN" is a bit obscure
• External link needs a bullet point before it
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks for the review! I think I got everything! Let me know if the table still acts weird. Erick (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's still issues with the table. It's something to do with the rowspans but I can't quite figure it out...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw some issues as I was passing by but they were for 2017 and 2018 for me. I made some edits – did they fix the issue on your end? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes! Thanks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you runningtiger123! @ChrisTheDude is the list good to go? Erick (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ ((sronly|caption_text)) instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! style="background:#efefef;" | Year becomes !scope=col style="background:#efefef;" | Year (or just !scope=col | Year). You have these for the first 2 tables, but not in Honorees.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |2013 becomes !scope=row |2013. You have these for the first 2 tables, but not in Honorees.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 17:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN Did I do everything right? Erick (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, although it looks like for most of them you made the name the "primary" column, but for Hero's Award and Conqueror Award you did the year, and they should probably be consistent. Oh, and you missed the Previously nominated artists table for rowscopes. --PresN 20:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN Done. Thanks so much for the table feedback! Erick (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from K. Peake

• The usage of "and" in lists of three or more should always be preceded by a comma
• The last paragraph of the lead should be merged with the one above since it is only one sentence and change "its inception" to "the inception"
• Icon Award (Premio Icono) should be changed to recognition per the wording of the source itself

Other than these points, everything looks really good and I commend all the work that went into this! --K. Peake 17:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! I think I got everything you addressed. As always, let me know if I missed anything! Erick (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you there, although one other thing I picked up on now was in the lead that you used "United States" multiple times when it should only be on the first mention when dealing with the lead, then the US please. K. Peake 17:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's right and you're constantly reminding me of that yet I keep on forgetting lol. Thank you so much Kyle, it means a lot to me! Especially on my birthday! Erick (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magiciandude I now support this wholeheartedly and generally had no idea before, happy birthday man!! --K. Peake 21:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Z1720[edit]

Version reviewed

• Ref 10: This appears to be a blog. What makes this a high-quality source?
• Ref 39: Why is Noticias Newswire a high quality source?

• Some references are wikilinked to the publisher, and some are not. This should be standardised (if wikilinking, only wikilink the first instance in the references)

Source check: passed. Sources checked: 2, 32, 38, 41, 42. No concerns about paraphrasing from earwig.

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Thanks for the ref review. I couldn't find a replacement for ref 10 so it and the sentence has been removed. I replaced ref 39 with a better source. I also wikilinked the missing publishers where applicable. Erick (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vaughan J.[edit]

Will get onto it now per your request! Not gonna review the prose, since that's been done by Chris, but I will get to the table part! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inductees

• Heading: Ref. → ((Abbr|Ref.|References)) – Ditto for "Posthumous inductees" section.
• "Manuel Alejandro‡" – shouldn't you use space for the dagger? (e.g. "Manuel Alejandro ‡")

Posthumous inductees

• See first point on "Inductees" then we're good.

Honorees

• Heading: Shouldn't there be a column just for the refs?
• Mess-up on Hero's Award – that being the 2017 recipient not using ! scope=row|.

Previously nominated artists

• Heading:

• <abbr title="Total number of nominations">No. of noms.</abbr> → ((Abbr|No.|Total number)) of ((Abbr|noms.|nominations))
• Reference → ((Abbr|Ref.|References))

• "2014, 2015, 2016 2017, 2019" – no comma between 2016 and 2017.

That's it! Ping me if you're done. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaughan J. I think I got them all! Thanks so much for the review! Erick (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I did some brief copyediting to fix some more issues so that you don't have to work on it again! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 21:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 03:21, 21 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

AC/DC discography[edit]

Nominator(s): VAUGHAN J. (TALK) and shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list showing the discography of Australian rock band AC/DC. The list was created in 2006 by Gsmuk (inactive since 2012), expanded and first nominated for FLC in 2008 by No-Bullet (also inactive since 2012). The first FLC nomination ended up not promoting. 15 years later, me and shaidar cuebiyar have been working hard this past week, to make it look like the discographies that is currently an FL (e.g. Daft Punk's or Slipknot's). This is my first FLC nomination, so I can tell it can get a bit hectic at times, so all types of feedback are all welcome and very much appreciated. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 07:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

• That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have addressed these concerns (most are copy edits). For the singles I decided to tackle their popular singles per certifications. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One more comment following the above edits. In the lead you now have both "AC/DC has" and "AC/DC have". I honestly don't know whether in Australian English band names are treated as singular (like in the US) or plural (like in the UK) bit whichever it is it needs to be consistent..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're quite correct, Australian English typically follows standard British usage and treats band names as plural. Notwithstanding this, I've left any "AC/DC has" that are part of titles in references. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the support! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

Ping me once you have addressed above. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: I think everything has been addressed. There are some comments from shaidar cuebiyar mostly on the source review. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Vaughan J. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok on the first pass. Taking a second look to make sure I don't miss anything and as a due diligence did spot checks for verifiability. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: I believe everything has been sorted out. Thanks for the review! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 21:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like everything is in order. This passes source review. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Reviewing prose. Hopefully this gets traction, and attracts more reviews needed to promote.

• That's about all I got. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 Just saw this the day after you sent the review, but I pretty much got everything done. Thanks for taking this review! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 16:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. Support on prose. Good luck with this FLC! Pseud 14 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 23:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pseud 14: Thanks for your comments.
  • Well done, Vaughan J, I see this FLC's in safe hands.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep. Just maybe one or two more supports and we're all good to go! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 04:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

magiciandude[edit]

@Vaughan J.: Just checking in to see if you saw my above message. Erick (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: Just saw it. Sorry for the wait, but I'll get into it soon. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 23:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: Just fixed the Billboard ref to a ref that mentions the 50 million copies. Thank you for the review! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my only concern being addressed. Do you think you could review Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame in return? Erick (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get onto it today or maybe tomorrow! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 05:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Not to bother you guys, but I need a status update for this FLC. It's now been inactive for almost 2 months. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 00:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on this request.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There unfortunately has not been enough review to be comfortable promoting; additionally only one person has supported on a content review. --PresN 12:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: After two more supports (which makes it 3 supports now), what's the status like now? — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 03:21, 21 February 2024 (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, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of birds of Alberta[edit]

Nominator(s): grungaloo (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have recently updated list with current information, added photos, tidied up prose. I think it's an interesting (if somewhat niche) list! grungaloo (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• You could start with a short-ish description of Alberta, as you've done in List of birds of Bouvet Island.
• The notes section is empty. Remove, unless some notes are added as this nomination proceeds.
• Consider adding an external link to iNaturalist (or an equivalent site) filtered by Aves and Alberta.
• The extinct and possibly extinct species could use individual references. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description added, notes removed, extinct species cited. I didn't add a link to iNaturalist or eBird since I think per WP:ELNO #1 this would be a repeat of the information in the list. I did add a link to the Alberta Rare Bird Records Committee which manages the official list and provides additional information on some confirmed sightings. grungaloo (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - forgot to ping MPGuy2824.grungaloo (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• No list should start with "This is a list" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed grungaloo (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The Canadian province of Alberta is a [...] province within Canada" - reads quite clunkily. Why not just "Alberta is a landlocked province within Canada"?
• "and the state of Montana to the south" - specify that this is a US state. No guarantee that people in other parts of the world will realise this
• " contributing to variety of bird species" => " contributing to the variety of bird species"
• "The list is that of the Official List of the Birds of Alberta, produced by the Alberta Bird Record Committee, as of April 2023.[6] Of the 438 species on the list" - I would simplify this to "The Official List of the Birds of Alberta, produced by the Alberta Bird Record Committee, contains 438 species as of April 2023.[6] Of these......"
• Merge that tiny second paragraph with the one below it
• "with a fleshy cere." - is there an appropriate link for "cere"? I for one have no idea what this is.
• "but have a fleshy cere above the upper mandible" - ah, there's the link! Move it to the earlier usage
• "unlike Old World vultures, which find carcasses by sight, New World vultures have a good sense of smell with which they locate carcasses." - move the link to the first usage in the sentence, not the second
• "Shrikes are passerine birds" - earlier you used a capital P on this word - which is correct?
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All fixed! Lowercase for passerine is correct so I've made sure that's all consistent. grungaloo (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fourth one doesn't seem to have been done.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My bad, should be good now, thanks! grungaloo (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

Images need alt text. -- EN-Jungwon 11:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added for all images. grungaloo (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to ping EN-Jungwon. grungaloo (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Nice to see someone else doing these.
• 'several "eastern" and "western" pairs' You don't make it clear what these are. Only someone who'd already a birder would realize what you're referring to.
  • Switched to eastern and western bluebied
• "introduced to North America" should be "introduced to Alberta" since wild turkey is included as one of the introduced species (and their introduction to Alberta is anyway what matters in the context of this list).
  • Fixed
• "125 are accidental" used as a noun, so should be "125 are accidentals"
  • Fixed
• You could link Extinct, Extirpated, and Introduced.
  • All are linked now. They're linked in the intro where they appear, I thought about moving them to the bottom of the intro where the codes are listed - do you think that would be better?
• "Violet-green Swallow" is incorrectly capitalized in the caption.
  • Changed the picture used so not an issue anymore
• I feel like the collection of images here is very underwhelming; most of them are left in from before the list was reworked and are pretty old. NA is the best-photographed region in the world for birds and almost every species in this list has a FP-quality image available on Commons, so I don't think I can support a list which still has images like the one for ruby-throated hummingbird.
  • Replaced with FP or Quality images where possible
• What's citing the family descriptions?
  • References added. If you want to check the source and don't have a copy, I can scan some pages for you to check.
• The first reference doesn't mention any of the places Alberta borders and the map on it doesn't even include the US. It's also not particularly high-quality imo.
  • Fixed
• That's what I got, leaning oppose in the current state because of the photos and the uncited material. AryKun (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks AryKun, I appreciate the comments! I'll work on those fixes over the next few days. grungaloo (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi AryKun, I've made the changes you suggest and replied to them inline. Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Grungaloo, you've added the citations without changing the underlying text at all, so the references do not support many claims made in the text. Checking for the two BOW refs (Gulls and Longspurs), I found many portions of the text that are completely absent from the BOW accounts. Looking at the description for Gulls:

    "Laridae is a family of medium-to-large seabirds, the gulls, terns, and skimmers. Gulls are typically grey or white, often with black markings on the head or wings. They have stout, longish bills and webbed feet. Terns are a group of generally medium to large seabirds typically with grey or white plumage, often with black markings on the head. Most terns hunt fish by diving, but some pick insects off the surface of fresh water."

    All of the bolded portions are not supported by the BOW ref. Unless all of the family descriptions are rewritten and checked for compliance with the sources you have, I can't support this. AryKun (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've rewritten the two you call out - worth noting that I took the Laridae description and reference from List of birds of Bouvet Island, so that article should be updated as well. The other descriptions genuinely match what is found in the source despite me not rewriting it - I imagine whoever initially wrote them used the same source I have. I'm happy to scan some pages so you can check, if you let me know which ones you'd like to spot-check I can send those. I'd rather not rewrite everything if it can be avoided. grungaloo (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Checked a couple descriptions from pages I have access to and they're fine, so support. AryKun (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grungaloo: I was about to promote this, but there's a cite error: "The named reference ARBC was invoked but never defined". You added it in this edit, and I'm unable to figure out what reference you meant. Ping me when you fix it and I'll promote. --PresN 03:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Should be fixed - thanks for catching that. It was a typo, ARBC instead of ABRC. grungaloo (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:45, 12 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [8].[reply]

List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) and ~ Tails Wx (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 23:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first featured list I've worked on, doing so cooperatively with Hey man im josh, who's the co-nominator. This list's structure and formatting was based on recently promoted List of Detroit Lions first-round picks. I'm grateful for Josh's help on the list and am hopeful that he will have his eleventh featured list, and my first! Please let us know of any issues or concerns on the list; we'll do our best to address them. ~ Tails Wx (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 23:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

• "The franchise was founded in Decatur, Illinois, on September 20, 1920, and became professional on September 17, 1920, and moved to Chicago in 1921" => "The franchise was founded in Decatur, Illinois, on September 20, 1920, became professional on September 17, 1920, and moved to Chicago in 1921"
• "to the Philadelphia Eagles in exchange for their 2023 first-round selection (No. 10 overall) and 2024 fourth-round selection (No. yet to be determined)" => "to the Philadelphia Eagles in exchange for their 2023 first-round selection (No. 10 overall) and 2024 fourth-round selection (no. yet to be determined)"
• That's all I got!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: both done here, thanks! ~ Tails Wx (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 17:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

• I tried to figure out how the team could become professional before it was even founded, but when I checked the sources, they said the franchise started on September 17 and there is no mention of September 20. Are better sources available to explain this?
• "8 Pro Bowls" – probably better to spell out eight (MOS:NUMERAL)
• 1974 and 2003 notes should not use periods for consistency
• Dick Harris and Joe Gray do not sort correctly

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not a change to make now, but capitalization may need to change depending on this RFC (though I have no clue how that discussion's going to be closed). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: - I can't believe I didn't pick up on the bit about the club apparently turning professional three days BEFORE being formed. I'd be intrigued to know the answer..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done here, here and here. Apparently, according to bearswire.usatoday.com (that's been added as a reference) the franchise was founded and became professional on the same day, September 17, 1920. Thus, I've amended the information; and since the content was from the Chicago Bears, I've also changed it there here. ~ Tails Wx (he/him • aroace • 🐾) 02:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To say "became professional" would indicate that the franchise had previously not been professional. If it was founded as a professional franchise then there is no need at all to state "and became professional" because it was never not professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was actually a mistake implemented into Chicago Bears, from which I copied that sentence from. The franchise was founded in 1919 and played a year of football before joining the league. At some point someone made a change to the main Chicago Bears page and changed 1919 to 1920 and I didn't notice when I transferred this. I'm kicking myself for it because I knew the Bears played a season outside of the pro league too. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should this article in fact say that the franchise was founded in 1919 and became professional in 1920? Because as it stands the wording doesn't really make sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: That's exactly what it should state. I've tweaked the changes made at Chicago Bears and made changes at List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks to reflect this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this can sort of actually happen. A city is awarded a team and then the city determines who the owner will be and then the team takes a day or two to actually get registered. Unless you look at is "Unnamed team" was founded, and then had it's name chosen later on. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all your concerns have been addressed @RunningTiger123. Thank you for taking the time to review the list, Tails and I very much appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gonzo_fan2007

• No pick should be sorted so it falls at the beginning/end of the list. You can do this by writing out ''((Sort|1=0|2=No pick))'' in each cell
• You have plenty of room to write out the "positions" in the table. Maybe this is just a personal preference, but for me I like to have as much info in the table and as little need to look at a key as possible. That way, the position abbreviations key can just be removed.
• The "Season, Pick, Position, College" parts of the key should be removed. These are so self-explanatory that explanation is unneeded, or if absolutely necessary you could include a note. But honestly, we rarely explain column headers in a key in any other list, why this one?
• Recommend that you move Ref #20 from all the column headers to the table title (i.e. after "Chicago Bears first-round draft picks by season").
• Any reason not to drop more photos down the side of the table?
• The Bears have had a number of first round picks selected as Rookie of the Year. This should be added as a pertinent award for this type of list (you can see what I did at List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks). I would also add MVP award to the table, but that one is probably more a personal decision.
• Ref #76 hasn't been archived. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No pick should be sorted so it falls at the beginning/end of the list. You can do this by writing out No pick in each cell – Does it not do that for you currently? No pick ends up at the top of the list, as if its value is 0 (for me personally). When I went to implement the sort template that you suggested I noticed it's attempting to add a Wikilink, which would be a redlink and unfortunately the sort template doesn't include a nolink parameter. Perhaps ((Date table sorting)) could work for this?

  • Did you user ((Sort)) or ((Sortname))? Right now, it sorts in the middle of players with the last name that starts with "N". "Sortname" adds a link, but "sort" doesn't. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ((Sort)) was giving me issues, but I implemented a bastardized version of ((sortname)) here that I think addresses your sorting concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have plenty of room to write out the "positions" in the table. Maybe this is just a personal preference, but for me I like to have as much info in the table and as little need to look at a key as possible. That way, the position abbreviations key can just be removed. – There's room, but it's also probably better for smaller screens that we don't write it out fully. This has also just been the format I've followed on these lists, as most of them don't write the positions out fully in my experience.

  • The width of the column right now is restricted to the length of the word "Position", the citation link, and the sort arrows. That length is about the same length as most positions (Defensive end is the longest typical position). The additional width is likely only a few characters wider than the present width, while gaining a massive benefit for "readers who are unfamiliar with the subject". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've abbreviated the column and updated the key to reflect this update. I'm open to listing the positions by a non-abbreivated name, I think I'd just prefer that it be a change adopted across all of the first-round pick lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Season, Pick, Position, College" parts of the key should be removed. These are so self-explanatory that explanation is unneeded, or if absolutely necessary you could include a note. But honestly, we rarely explain column headers in a key in any other list, why this one? – That may be a fair point. I suppose my goal is always for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject to be able to read and understand a list at first glance. How strongly do you feel about this? I only ask because I'm considering whether it should be implemented across all of the relevant lists.

  • I mean, I don't feel strongly about anything really lol, I just think it is excessive and in most other lists I don't see it unless the we have to use acronyms or something that really needs to be explained. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any thoughts on this one? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gonzo fan2007: I can't really argue for it except for WP:ILIKEIT, so I've removed it. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend that you move Ref #20 from all the column headers to the table title (i.e. after "Chicago Bears first-round draft picks by season"). – I actually would like to not do this, as it would, in my opinion, imply that the notes column is also being verified by this reference. As it stands, I think it's clear that the notes column is not.

  • Fair enough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any reason not to drop more photos down the side of the table? – Not particularly, I'll start looking for a few more good ones.

  • 👍 « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Bears have had a number of first round picks selected as Rookie of the Year. This should be added as a pertinent award for this type of list (you can see what I did at List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks). I would also add MVP award to the table, but that one is probably more a personal decision. – My problem with this is evaluating which groups of voters/awarders should be used for this. I can see the argument for it though.

  • What I did was just link to National Football League Rookie of the Year Award with the note and include it for any player that won any type of the award (did the same for MVP). That way the info is correct, just not specific. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • After giving it some thought, I'd prefer not to include this for consistency. As of now, it looks like List of Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks and List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks are the only two lists in Category:Lists of first-round draft picks by National Football League team that include this. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #76 hasn't been archived. – This was intentional actually. If I were to archive it now, then when I re-used the reference later in note AF, once comp picks have been awarded and the fourth-round pick can actually be specified, it would contain an older version of the source that didn't contain this information. I can get around this though actually by using one of the numerous sources that has reported on this.

  • Makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replaced the reference now. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll start looking at the pictures and a different source for the 2024 No. 1 pick. I just wanted to get back to you quickly and thank you for looking over the list @Gonzo fan2007. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I've responded to all the points that were awaiting a reply @Gonzo fan2007. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support regarding the ROY award and the full write out of the positions, I think it would be good to have that discussion to see if consensus is that they should be added, with the default that it be left to a case-by-case basis if there isn't support to include them in all. Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like a good idea to me. I'd love for this series of lists to have some consistency to them. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:20, 12 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

List of Atlanta Falcons seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fourth National Football League FLC, coming after List of Baltimore Ravens seasons. The Atlanta Falcons are a mediocre team in the league, with some success coming in the last 20 years. Thanks in advance to everyone who provides their feedback :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I didn't pick up anything - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• "Ref" column should be "Refs" instead since some of the sections have multiple references.
• Could you include notes for 2002 and 1970 to explain the change in conference/division. Preferably in the relevant column for these.
• The note for 1982 should probably be included in the division & finish column instead of the reference column.
• Source review passes. All references appear to be properly formatted and reliable for the content being cited.

Good stuff ULPS, even if you did take an article I was going to eventually complete! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I think I got everything! And you'll get every other season FL, don't worry 😉 ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I actually just found two issues @ULPS.

• Ref 17, please add |url-access=subscription to the reference.
• Ref 39, please add a published date

I won't withdraw my support because I'm confident you'll get these fixed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SounderBruce

• "NFL Commissioner" should be uncapped per MOS:JOBTITLE.
• The expansion team sentence is rather short and could be merged upstream; the link to 1966 should also be expanded out (perhaps to "1966 season") to avoid a MOS:EGG situation.
• I would switch the ordering of the paragraph to put the ownership history before the stadiums to keep mentions of Smith closer together.
  • At the same time, I think expanding a bit on the different stadiums would be helpful to readers.
• "The Falcons made it to two" could be "The Falcons have appeared in two" to avoid a "to two" situation.
• "losing both to" implies that both losses were to the Broncos.
• An explanation of which divisions the Falcons played in could help readers as well.
• Nothing to say about the table, except that I never knew the NFL had a Coastal Division. SounderBruce 07:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SounderBruce: Got everything, except expanding on the stadiums. What info do you think I should put there? I was thinking things like super bowl appearances, but that may confuse people as those were not played at the stadium. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A simple description of the stadiums would help explain why the team had moved; e.g. the current stadium has a retractable roof and the first one was outdoor and shared with baseball. SounderBruce 02:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

• ULPS Can you put a space between the symbol and the text in the key? The hashtag, for example, is really hard to read.
• Use ((Win-loss record)) for all the win loss records in the text and table. You could delete Note b.
• The Notes shouldn't be in the "References" section. They are hidden and aren't references. They should be added in the table like Note c is.
• Note a should just be converted to inline text. Just state "by winning percentage" in the text.
• Ref 80 isn't archived.

That's all I got. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna send a ping to @ULPS in case they missed this feedback. They're usually pretty good about responding quickly to feedback here. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I missed this, I'll get to it within a day or two :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Got everything I think, but I'm not sure what you mean by the notes being in the references section? They're all in their own "Notes" section, I think I'm misunderstanding you. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ULPS, the clickable links for the notes [b], [d] and [f] are located in the Refs column of the table. Since this column is titled "Refs", it should only include reference links. If you look at the other seasons lists, these are typically located elsewhere in the table. As an example, Note [b] could be located next to "1978" in the "Season" column. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Ah okay, got it now. Fixed. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 03:20, 12 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]

List of accolades received by Elvis (2022 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 11:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a year of expansion, I nominate this list since it is consistent to contemporary "List of accolades received by..." articles, many of which are WP:FLs. Chompy Ace 11:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

• Wikilink Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller (they have a joint article)
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 18:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Prose looks good, spot check references are good, well laid out. grungaloo (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Birdienest81

• It's a good list. However, before I review it, there is a rule that states "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Your featured list nomination for the accolades list of The Martian has only garnered two supports. Next time, you should wait until the first nomination garners substantial support (preferably at least three of four explicit supports).

--Birdienest81talk 10:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birdienest81, would you want to review this article now if you have time? The Martian (film) accolades list has three supports, so this list is eligible to be reviewed now. Chompy Ace 01:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Are you there? Chompy Ace 01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on for a minute. I am very busy trying to rescue another list from demotion of its featured list status. I will not be able to do a review until next week. I will actually review your accolades list for The Martian first (possibly by the weekend) before going to review this one. There is no set timetable to do reviews. I am not trying to evade your request, but I have a busy schedule including real life stuff at home. Birdienest81talk 06:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments by Birdienest81

• For ref 5, I think you should replace that article with this one from the Associated Press. Teen Vogue is okay, but when we are dealing with featured content, we try to utilize more high quality sources.
• Ref 6 does not have the publication title where the article came from.
• Ref 9 needs to have all words except articles and four-letter prepositions capitalized.

Ny the way, Before you nominate another list, wait until one of your two nominations has been closed either it was passed under review or failed. No nominator should have more than two candidates listed here.

--Birdienest81talk 07:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birdienest81 Done. Chompy Ace 14:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It looks fine to me.

--Birdienest81talk 07:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]

List of Hot Black Singles number ones of 1986[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest in this series for your consideration. In this year another member of the most successful family in black music joins the list of chart-toppers..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

• Change Ref. to ((abbr|Ref.|Reference))

Support. That's all I got. -- EN-Jungwon 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are a couple of photos of Dionne Warwick that are taken closer to 1986, which you could consider using. Besides that, I don't see problems in the text, table or images. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: - I went with one from the 70s...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

• To be clear, this is more a clarification question than an actual suggestion, but why not use this Janet Jackson image for the lead? The list does use other black-and-white images, but the quality of this particular image is not the greatest. Again, not saying that you need to change it, but I was just curious.
• I am uncertain about "to date" in this part, (three times in his career to date). Per MOS:RELTIME, it is a word choice that is best avoided when possible. Would there a way to replace it with something else?

I only have two minor questions, and once they are both addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Great work as always. You really are an expert at making these types of lists. Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - thanks for your review and kind words - both points addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this list for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text
• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2024 (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) 22:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]

List of Hot Black Singles number ones of 1985[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's #43 in this series. In this particular year there was something of a changing of the diva guard at the top of the R&B singles chart, as both Aretha Franklin and Diana Ross, superstars since the mid-1960s, reached number one for the final time and Whitney Houston got there for the very first time. Feedback as ever gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

• Change ref 25 from https://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs/1985-02-023 to https://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs/1985-02-23
• Change ref 61 from https://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs/1985-11-025 to https://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs/1985-11-02
• Archive ref 25 and 61

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 11:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @EN-Jungwon: - done. No idea what happened there :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've fixed the second source for you. Support -- EN-Jungwon 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

• Ref=Reference abbreviation in the table :)
• Perhaps worth linking supergroup, for those who may be unfamiliar with the music term.
• Another of the biggest stars of black music -- should it be another one of?
• That's all I have. Great work as ever! Pseud 14 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - done the first two, the final one is alright as it stands I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• Consider adding an image for Freddie Jackson since his songs spent the most weeks at the #1 slot. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPGuy2824: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the image captions could use a "(pictured in 19xy)", I think. Maybe only the ones that are a decade away from 1985. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPGuy2824: - done. I did all of them as only one was within a decade of 1985 and it would have looked odd to have it shown for all bar one IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I believe the sources and images have already been looked at. Support for promotion based on the prose too. Great work!--NØ 13:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

This article is listed as needing a source review, so I thought I'd go ahead and provide one.

• Ref 8 - Please link to The New York Times.
• Ref 17 - Remove "Billboard.com" from the title
  • Both done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks great, good job as always Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All of the photos in the article have appropriate free licenses, captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Idiosincrático (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2024 (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) 22:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Portland Trail Blazers draft history[edit]

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer^talk 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm back with my second FLC while I wait for my first one to be resolved. I decided to work on another NBA list and have worked on this one off and on over the last few months. This one is about the draft selections of the Portland Trail Blazers beginning with their first pick back in 1970 and the accomplishments of many of them while playing for the team. -- ZooBlazer^talk 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

Will review soon- upon first look, the lead is very long. The lead should most certainly be divided with headers and reorganized appropriately. Perhaps "History" or "Statistics" or something else. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've divided up the lead with headers.

I'm also in the process of adding the missing players from the table, which may take a day or two. At first I thought it would just be extra clutter to add every single pick when most missing players aren't notable, but I looked at draft history articles for other teams and many include even the non notable players. - This is now finished. -- ZooBlazer^talk 01:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk Would you still be willing to do a review if you have a chance? ZooBlazer 06:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer, completely forgot, thanks for reminding me. After looking through and making some minor changes, I only have one comment: the coloration on the table headers is making the up and down arrows not visible. Is there any way to have them visible? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk Hmm, I'm not sure. Looking at other all-time roster articles, it looks like the template (((NBA all-time roster))) always makes the arrows black regardless of the team colors used. I don't know if there is something that can be updated in the template or if the table in the article can be individually changed to make the arrows white or red. ZooBlazer 15:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's a standard part of the template, I don't think it's too disagreeable. Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• The lead needs to be much more than three sentences long -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've expanded the lead now. -- ZooBlazer^talk 16:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• "The franchise won its [...] and were" - subject changes from singular to plural mid-sentence
• "led by their 1974 first overall pick, Bill Walton, as well as multiple other of their former draft picks from that team who went on to have their numbers retired by Portland" => "led by their 1974 first overall pick, Bill Walton, along with other former draft picks who went on to have their numbers retired by Portland" is far more succinct and easy to read
• "Many of the players selected players" - repeated word
• "The team also has four Rookie of the Year winners, three of whom were drafted by Portland" => "Three players drafted by Portland won the Rookie of the Year award" (if the fourth guy to win that award wasn't drafted by Portland then he isn't relevant to this article)
• "Geoff Petrie, the franchise's first ever draft pick was named" => "Geoff Petrie, the franchise's first ever draft pick, was named"
• "Petrie averaged 21.8 points, 2.8 rebounds, and 4.6 assist" - are there appropriate wikilinks for these terms, as I for one have no idea what a "rebound" is (the others I can probably guess)
• "In 1972, they chose center LaRue Martin from Loyola Chicago, the team then chose" - start a new sentence after Chicago to break up an extremely long run-on sentence
• "and 3.7 blocks during the series" - would benefit from a link here too
• "as he had season ending microfracture surgery" => "as he had season-ending microfracture surgery"
• "two points field goals made" - I *think* this should be "two-point field goals made"
• Could do with a link on "steals" wherever that is mentioned first
• Also link field goals (I thought that was an American football thing......?)
• And free throws too
• "Drexler won in 1992 in Barcelona as a member of the Dream Team, and Lillard won at the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo" - seems a bit random to pipe out the words "Summer Olympics" on the first usage but not the second. If you are only going to show it once then it really should be on the first usage
• "winning one of the bronze" => "winning one of the bronzes"
• "Dave Twardzik (#13), Lionel Hollins (#14), Larry Steele (#15), Drexler (#22), Bob Gross (#30), Terry Porter (#30), Walton (#32), Lloyd Neal (#36), and Petrie (#45)." - this is not a complete sentence
• In the key you have symbols along with colour to denote Hall of Famer and NBA All-Star (which is correct - colour alone is not enough for accessibility reasons) but then you don't actually use the symbols in the table
• You need a symbol for First Overall NBA Draft Pick
• I'd be tempted to add something into the History section to cover the fact that the draft has (apparently) shrunk dramatically in size since 1970, with the result that a team has gone from being able to draft a whopping 19 players a year down to just 2. It just looks a little odd in the table without context -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Thank you for the feedback. I think I've addressed everything that you mentioned. -- ZooBlazer^talk 16:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The pattern for the combined cells (such as Walton's and Wicks') makes it very hard to read the player name. I suggest choosing just one background color (either the more significant honor or a new arbitrary color just for those combos). SounderBruce 01:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SounderBruce Which option would you suggest? It was originally the color of the most significant honor, but I changed it because there was a similar situation brought up during one of my recent FLCs by EN-Jungwon. I do agree that it's hard to read. ZooBlazer 01:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Making the stripes wider might also be an option. As it stands, the main issue is that the close spacing is causing an optical illusion. SounderBruce 02:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SounderBruce I changed just the first instance of the double colors as a test. I made the prominent honor color a bigger line. Would that work? Or should i try something else? I'm inexperienced when it comes to this kind of thing, so it's a lot of trial and error. ZooBlazer 03:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is easier to read with thicker stripes, but they should be consistent widths. Having fewer stripes is totally fine; using non-diagonal ones could also help with readability. SounderBruce 04:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SounderBruce I made the lines 180 degrees. That look okay? ZooBlazer 06:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SounderBruce: Just wanted to ping you again to see if further changes need to be done still or not with the pattern. -- ZooBlazer 07:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It still doesn't look right, though I don't have an answer for what would work in its place. Aside from the color, I also suggest swapping out the tilde for a different symbol, as it is hard to see. Also consider fixing the hidden sort button in the header. SounderBruce 09:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SounderBruce: Swapped out the symbol by borrowing from your Seahawks seasons FL. Small way of combining my favorite NFL team with my NBA team I guess. As for the sort button, it isn't hidden purposely. The problem is the arrow is black like the background so it blends in. -- ZooBlazer 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ZooBlazer pinged me to give an opinion here; unfortunately I have problems but not solutions.

• The black header making the sort arrows invisible isn't ok. I know it's their colors, but those need to be visible so that the reader knows they exist.
• The stripes are...odd. I think they're okay accessibility-wise? But I'm pretty sure to a lot of readers it's just noise, especially some of the color combinations. I know EN-Jungwon asked to have the colors match the symbols instead of just a single color last summer, but I don't think they were right. I don't know of any better way to display multiple colors in a row then what you have, but I don't think it works well right now. --PresN 03:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. Combining the awards makes a lot of sense. I can't commit to doing a full prose review, but on the table portion I can support this nomination. SounderBruce

Love it, thanks! --PresN 18:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:52, 4 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Australia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 22:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has 20 World Heritage Sites, including the Sydney Opera House, Uluru, and the Great Barrier Reef (and several ones that are a bit less known that those three). Standard style. The list for India is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. This one is medium-length, the next couple of nominations will likely be shorter. Tone 22:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, it seems I forgot to add it to the FLC list when I created this nomination, fixed now. Tone 16:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

• Can "Location (state)" be changed to "Location (state or territory)" seeing as the Northern Territory, Norfolk Island and Heard Island and McDonald Islands are territories and not states.
• Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands can be linked and also shortened to Heard Island and McDonald Islands which is the common name.
• "both at the second session of the World Heritage Committee, held in Sydney, in 1981." This seems to be the fifth session according to the World Heritage Committee article.

Steelkamp (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I used another image for the lakes, it is more informative anyway :) --Tone 07:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all, thanks! Tone 09:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Plural of mollusc is molluscs.
• Is there are version of File:Willandra Lakes.png without the numbers on the image that can be used? With no key, the numbers are useless.
• "the Aboriginal Australians have lived in the area at least 21,000 years ago." I would change this to just "Aboriginal Australians lived in the area at least 21,000 years ago."

Steelkamp (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Copy-edited somewhat.
• "found the cremation burial dating" This seems grammatically and semantically wrong; you can't cremate and bury a person at the same time.
• "wild river systems" as opposed to domestic rivers?
• "ancient relict species Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii and Wollemia" Wollemia is not a species, might want to reword.
• That's all I have; nice job! AryKun (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! A wild river is actually a term depicting an unregulated river, and in the context of Tasmania, it is relevant. Linked and additional text provided. Tone 09:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There's a random space between "August 1974" and the full stop
• " is world's most extensive coral reef system" => " is the world's most extensive coral reef system"
• "Archaeologists found a cremation dating to around 40,000 years BP, early stone tools, as well as fossils of giant marsupials." => "Archaeologists found a cremation dating to around 40,000 years BP, early stone tools, and fossils of giant marsupials."
• "The area is home to the threatened species such as the boodie," => "The area is home to threatened species such as the boodie,"
• "At the length of 122 km (76 mi), Fraser Island" => "At a length of 122 km (76 mi), Fraser Island"
• " It also includes the only growing sites of the ancient relict species" - what is a "relict species"?
• "The coastal waters are home to one the longest coral reefs" =? "The coastal waters are home to one of the longest coral reefs"
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! Linked relict species as this is a biological term. Tone 16:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• "Lake Mungo is pictured." You should say that this is the dried up lake bed.
• Willandra "contains some of the oldest evidence of modern human occupation outside Africa". This is in the source but I would delete as it is contradicted by the dating of Kakadu above.
• "Aboriginal Australians have lived in the area at least 21,000 years ago". This is ungrammatical. I would say "for at least 21,000 years". Also, I cannot see 21,000 in the sources. The description says 20,000 in the lead and 40,000 in the main text.
• "Among animals, there are numerous bird and marsupial species." Would this not apply to all Australian natural sites?
• "colony of living stromatolites, providing some of the earliest records of life on earth". This is not quite right. The records are fossils, not living organisms. Stromatalites are famous because they form microbial mats similar to fossils which are some of the earliest which can be seen without a microscope.
• "This allows researchers to study the sequence of crustal levels all the way down to about 6 km (3.7 mi) below the ocean floor." This is confusing as it appears to imply that researchers are digging 6 km down. You should clarify that rocks from this depth are exposed at the surface.
• "Fossil and geological record is spanning for 350 million years". This sounds very odd. Maybe "The fossil and geological record spans 350 million years.
• "the Sturtian glaciation (672 Mya). The Sturtian lasted over 50 million years. 672 is just the date of a particular exposure in Flinders. It might mean more to readers to refer to Snowball Earth.
• I doubt whether readers will be interested in changes in site boundaries. It might be better to put them in footnotes. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, great comments. I am through. I'd leave the boundaries changes, this is why there are bis etc in the numbers, otherwise I sometimes get questions about those. Speaking of, I've just checked the UNESCO site and they added two more tentative sites so I'll have to add those two before the article is ready. Tone 14:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dudley Miles: Alright, the two new tentative sites added, ready for review. Tone 08:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Feel free to disagree

• "added to the list were the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park, and Willandra Lakes Region, both at the fifth session of the World Heritage Committee". Not sure if "both" is the right word for this sentence, as it implies two sites, when three are listed.
• "was thought to be extinct but was recently rediscovered on the islet of Ball's Pyramid" (Lord Howe Island section); "recently rediscovered" is subject to rot, is there a specific year that can be cited instead?
• "has fossils from 30 to 10 million years ago" (Fossil Mammal sites) –> "has fossils from 10 to 30 million years agos"
• "and the recently extinct thylacine" (same section); again "recently" subject to rot, but also, the citation doesn't say the tiger is extinct (even though it obviously is). Nonetheless, an additional citation would be needed to say it is.

There is a policy somewhere about word rot but I couldn't find it. Overall a really good list, I think in future, more source diversity in the individual description sections would bring this list to perfection (instead of just UNESCO which is still very good). Idiosincrático (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Idiosincrático: Fixed, thanks! I don't think that "agos" is better, the others I have addressed. I agree, better to use different formulations than "recently". For those, I added third-party references since UNESCO source indeed does not have that. Otherwise, I am usually sticking to the UNESCO-related sources since they are the most factual on why a site has been listed/nominated. Other sources would either relate to the nomination or write about unrelated things about the site which is kind of out of scope here. Tone 07:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support :) Idiosincrático (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:52, 4 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [15].[reply]

List of New Orleans Saints seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be up to featured list quality. This is my second NFL team seasons list and I will, as always, do my best to respond prompty to all comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ULPS

• "Refs" is an abbreviation, so use the template
• It feels somewhat clunky for During the team's worst season in 1980 the fans began to wear paper bags over their heads to games and started to call the team the "'Aints". The Saints did not have their first winning-season until 1987, their twenty-first season in the league. That same season, the Saints made their first playoff appearance. to be at the end, perhaps move it earlier in the paragraph?
• When there are multiple coaches in a season, I think you should put a note next to their record specifying what exactly those numbers mean. IMO it's not completely clear that it's their record otherwise.
• Coaches are wikilinked after their first mention, not needed.

Not really any major comments, nice work! ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Refs" is an abbreviation, so use the template – Done
• It feels somewhat clunky... – I see what you've getting at. I've moved the sentences around a bit, let me know your thoughts.
• When there are multiple coaches in a season, I think you should put a note next to their record specifying what exactly those numbers mean. IMO it's not completely clear that it's their record otherwise. – I feel as though it's contextually clear, how strongly do you feel about this?
• Coaches are wikilinked after their first mention, not needed. – MOS:DUPLINK allows for re-linking within tables. I've kept it consistent within the list, but it is my personal preference to re-link within lists that I work on.

Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I had to move my reply and didn't ping (I think I submitted too soon on accident), I just wanted to send a ping your way to let you know I've responded @ULPS. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with the changes, don't have any other gripes. Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "five months after the 89th United States Congress approved the merger of the NFL with the American Football League (AFL) in June of that year" - I think the last five words are redundant as most people can work out that five months prior to November was June
• "In January 1967, the team was given the current "New Orleans Saints" name" => "In January 1967, the team was given the name "New Orleans Saints""
• "Since the franchise's creation, it has been based in New Orleans." - I think "Throughout the franchise's history, it has always been based in New Orleans." would make the point clearer
• Any way to make it so the next two sentences don't both start with "the team"?
• "originally Louisiana Superdome from 1975 to 2011 and formerly Mercedes-Benz Superdome from 2011 to 2021" => "originally Louisiana Superdome from 1975 to 2011 and later Mercedes-Benz Superdome from 2011 to 2021"
• "Tom remained owner" => "He remained owner"
• "Gayle has since" => "She has since"
• "The Saints did not have their first winning-season" - no reason for that hyphen -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fantastic feedback as always, thank you @ChrisTheDude! I've implemented all of your suggested changes and I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

• Is it necessary to have the initialism "AFL" in the lead when the AFL is not mentioned again in the lead?
• NFL playoffs could be linked in the earlier mention of "playoffs" rather than later in the same sentence.
• "During the team's worst season in 1980[A] the fans began to wear paper bags over their heads to games and started to call the team the "'Aints"." Is this sentence strictly necessary for this list? I think it's a bit too much information for a list like this.
• Could you consider using Template:Nowrap in the head coaches column around the parts in brackets? On my browser, "(1–5–1)" is split between different lines when it would look better as one line.

Those are all the comments I have. Support in light of there being no major issues. Steelkamp (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your review @Steelkamp! To address your points...

• Is it necessary to have the initialism "AFL" in the lead when the AFL is not mentioned again in the lead?

– I mentioned the AFL in the lead because the acronym is used again later in footnote B.

• NFL playoffs could be linked in the earlier mention of "playoffs" rather than later in the same sentence. – Good catch, fixed.
• During the team's... Is this sentence strictly necessary for this list? I think it's a bit too much information for a list like this. – I think a brief mention of history is sometimes relevant, especially given the context that their first winning season was their twenty-first in the league. Other NFL articles have brief mentions of history, especially those with historic bad streaks. The nickname is also somewhat relevant as it comes up whenever the Saints aren't playing well. A similar one would have been List of Detroit Lions seasons mentioning some of the negatives of my beloved franchise.
• Could you consider using Template:Nowrap in the head coaches column... – Good suggestion, done. I'll implement this on other season articles I've worked/am working on moving forward.

I appreciate the feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

Only minor comments that don't affect my support:

• The "Finish, T-# and Pct" seem redundant or self-explanatory (you have the tooltip on the column headers in the table)
• Recommend ((Win-loss record)) for the head coach column
• If you rowspan the reference cells in the "Total" row, you can remove some duplication
• The note about the worst season in the last sentence of the lead should just be written out, either inline in the sentence or in parenthesis.
• Source review: Passed
  • Ref #1 - I would add the primary title "New Orleans Saints - Team Facts"
  • Ref #41 - the title can be shortened to "Jim Mora - Head Coach - New Orleans Saints Legends", which is the title on the web page
  • All references are archived, are reliable sources and are appropriately formatted. Spot checks showed good connection to the data that was cited.

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I've implemented most of your suggestions. I did not remove Finish, to clarify that this may represent the division or conference and not their finish against the overall league, T-# because I think others could use the clarification, and pct because I like that a person may click on "winning percentage" in the key, whereas they cannot for the tooptip. I did not change ref 1 because, and please do help me understand this if I'm incorrect, wouldn't that be editorializing the target's title? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, you may find ((Abbrlink)) useful. It Allows the generation of a tooltip while also providing a clickable link. (I.e. PctTooltip Winning percentage). Regarding the title, I try to stick to what is provided on the page; that said for ProFootballHoF.com, the way that they split up their web pages is ridiculous. So I tend to clarify the team I am talking about in the title. That said, not a big issue, obviously. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had that same problem with ProFootballHoF.com when citing those team fact pages, I hate it. Thank you for the advice! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:52, 4 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [16].[reply]

List of National Football League annual interceptions leaders[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is #9 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders (7th one I've contributed to). Formatting is based off of past successful featured lists from the series. As always, I will do my best to respond and address issues as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COmments

• First sentence needs to mention that we are talking about American football
• "did not begin tracking interceptions under 1940" - until, surely?
• "Dick Lynch led the league twice during the 1960's" - 1960s doesn't have an apostrophe
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for looking over the list and providing this helpful feedback. I've made fixes that I hope address all of your comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

• Image review: The source links on all(!) of the images appear to be dead. Have you looked at the archive to see if something can be salvaged?
• Source review: The references follow a consistent format which italicizes all of the website names and the few links I spotchecked are working. Apologies for not being familiar with sports sources. If Pro-Football-Reference.com is considered a reputed source then the SR passes.
• The prose is top quality so it is a support on that front.--NØ 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MaranoFan: Pro-Football-Reference.com is indeed considered a reliable source (based on sources used by User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter) and I use it extensively for the lists that I work on. As for the source links for images, is it standard to expect that the original sources are active or linked via archive? This is something I haven't had asked of me before. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)*[reply]

  When the source links are dead I usually ask for the archives just to verify the files were avilable under the stated license (it is also appropriate to link them in a bracket after the dead link on the file page). Exceptions can always be made if they are not available on the archive site, though.--NØ 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MaranoFan: Am I meant to edit the file, or do you just want the links? I'll put the work in I just want to make sure I'm doing it right :) Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It could go in parenthesis after the dead link, like what I've done here for example, if you want to add it to the file. For the purpose of the image review, I would just need to see that the licensing is correct so providing the links is sufficient!--NØ 20:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @MaranoFan. I'll take a crack at that tomorrow (probably) and send you a ping once I've gone through all the images. Appreciate the tip and example! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MaranoFan: I was able to add archive links for all of the images except for the first one, which features Night Train Lane. I did manage to find the image in 3 locations though (1, 2, 3). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The source and image reviews both pass.--NØ 16:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

• who then gains possession for their team, it's minor, but "typically" should be added here. If the intercepting team then proceeds to fumble the ball (which happened quite recently), then the intercepting team wouldn't automatically gain possession.
• I am guessing that the number after the player name means how many times they have led the league? Could you make that text small (matches other lists that do this) and clarify somewhere what this means. Also, that number should go before the symbols (†, for example).
• You could note in Don Hutson's that he led the league in interceptions the same year he led the league in touchdown catches. Just a recommendation.
• Is there data for interceptions returned for touchdowns? Could be an interesting addition to the table.

That's all I got, nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ...it's minor, but "typically" should be added here. If the intercepting team then proceeds to fumble the ball (which happened quite recently), then the intercepting team wouldn't automatically gain possession. – I actually thought about this scenario prior to nominating. The way that I interpret this is that any player with possession can lose possession at any point and that's sort of a separate aspect compared to the interception itself, once it's considered to be a catch anyways.
• I am guessing that the number after the player name means how many times they have led the league? Could you make that text small (matches other lists that do this) and clarify somewhere what this means. Also, that number should go before the symbols (†, for example). – It's actually clarified in the key with the symbol as (#). I'm open to reworking how this is called out in the key if the current iteration is at all confusing. I'm absolutely open to making the numbers smaller, but this is the seventh annual stat list I've nominated and I've put the symbol before the number of appearances within the list each time. I believe, from a quick lookover of the annual stat lists (I have a list of them here, it is actually consistent with other similar lists. Additionally, I think it makes sense to show the symbol before the number in brackets because we don't include it on the first occurrence, making it appear to be more consistent formatting by including the symbol first.
• You could note in Don Hutson's that he led the league in interceptions the same year he led the league in touchdown catches. Just a recommendation. – Good call out, I already mentioned that he's a two-way player, so it makes perfect sense to mention. I included that he led in scoring and receiving touchdowns.
• Is there data for interceptions returned for touchdowns? Could be an interesting addition to the table. – It looks like there is actually considering Ace Parker's PFR shows that he had a pick-6. I like that suggestion, I'll start working on it.

As always, I very much appreciate your feedback and review @Gonzo fan2007. You always get my brain thinking about how these lists could be better. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here that would prevent me from supporting. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the pick-6 column, thanks again for the suggestion and review @Gonzo fan2007. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One other question. I feel like this is the first time I have noticed data (numbers) being left-justified in the table. I am not sure if there is an MOS, but anecdotally I feel like most number data is represented as either center justified or right justified. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Funny you mention that, it's been bugging me for a bit too and I was on the fence about it. You think I should implement the centering on the statistic that the annual page is based on and the GPs column on this and the other annual lists I've promoted? Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely prefer center alignment for any numerical value. It wouldn't stop my support either way tho. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:52, 4 February 2024 (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) 12:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [17].[reply]

List of accolades received by The Martian (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 09:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to recent contemporary FLs, I am nominating this for featured list because I have reworked and rewrote it to match with those lists. Chompy Ace 09:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the interests of at least finding something to pick up on, I don't think "Best Use Of Native 3D" should have a capital O on of...... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 18:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Very good stuff. Support. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• For consistency, either add the names of the nominees in parentheses after the category name (like the Golden Globes sentence), or just omit it altogether. Harushiga (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harushiga, done. Chompy Ace 20:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Solid work as always! Harushiga (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Formatting and reliability both look okay here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• For refs 31, 33, 48, 62, and 65, I think you should capitalize all the words in the title unless they are four-lettered prepositions or articles "a, an, & the".

--Birdienest81talk 07:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birdienest81 Done. Chompy Ace 14:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:52, 4 February 2024 (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.