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) 00:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Woody Harrelson filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 04:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to working on this, I wasn't aware of how prolific an actor Harrelson is. I hope this serves as a comprehensive and informative list. Thanks! ~ HAL333 04:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — But consider archiving sources (WP:PLRT). ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA Thanks for the advice. I'm in the process of doing it, but it'll take a while. ~ HAL333 03:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA  Done Just for future reference, is there a bot that I can assign to do that? ~ HAL333 05:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, use this tool. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Support. All the images are appropriate to the subject and properly-licensed. They fulfill the "5b)Visual appeal" criteria. Shearonink (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I cannot find anything to complain about in the text so I support in general, but am I being too picky by saying that only the top pic mentions a performance and the 1996 pic is not great quality? If there are no better pics you could ask the graphics workshop if they could improve the 1996 pic as the expressions on the guys faces and their gestures are great, but would it be possible to see them more clearly without overexposing the background? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just decided to remove the 1996 pic. ~ HAL333 23:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 I added another image. Did you notice anything else? ~ HAL333 17:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --- Chidgk1 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Naomi Watts filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British actress Naomi Watts is known for her roles in Mulholland Drive, The Ring, 21 Grams, and more recently in the television series Gypsy and The Loudest Voice. As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "in Alejandro González Iñárritu-directed" => "in the Alejandro González Iñárritu-directed"
• "for which she garnered a nomination for Best Actress" => "for which she garnered nominations for Best Actress" (as it refers to three separate nominations)
• "in biographical drama Fair Game" => "in the biographical drama Fair Game"
• Film titles which start with a number should sort as if they start with the equivalent word
• If you sort on any other column and then try to resort on the year column, the TBA values all go to the top when they should go to the bottom
• Think that's it from me, looking good generally! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review. I think I've sorted the above. Cowlibob (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but is there a reason why filmographies have shifted from the film being the first column to the year? Going by the guidelines on MOS:DTT, would it not be more beneficial for visually impaired users to have the film in the row scopes rather than the year? Seeing as that is the more important info, in my eyes anyway, shouldn't they be structured the same way as discographies and accolades list? The guideline I have linked to all has an example table of a filmography that is in the style I mentioned. This seems to have been common practice judging by older nominations, is there a reason why this has changed? - NapHit (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Thanks for your comment. The table is per WP:FILMOGRAPHY which is the agreed model per consensus for these type of lists by the relevant WikiProject. Most FLCs and lists of this nature follow this format to my knowledge. I don't have a preference. Cowlibob (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You now have my support. Another job well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A comprehensive list with very impressive attention to detail overall, just a few nitpicks. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 19:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Thanks for your review. I think I've fixed the above. For the numbers in the table, I think they would be the former so have expressed all the numbers as figures rather than words. It would look strange to express season number by its words than numbers. Replaced ref for Boss Level with your one, thanks. Added a ref for number of episodes on Home and Away. Cowlibob (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: one small change in response to the new content, here. Revert if you prefer the old version. All issues listed above addressed. Excellent layout, consistent style, comprehensive and well-sourced. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Iceland[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The land of fire and ice (insert your favorite GoT pun - but hey, they filmed it there as well!). A new nomination from Northern Europe, following the FLs for Norway and Denmark, and Finland is getting support. Medium-term plan is to get all the countries covered so I can nominate a featured topic, let's see. Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I would make the bit in brackets a separate sentence starting "The existing site...."
• "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir has served" => "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir served"
• "as a venue of Althing" => "as a venue for the Althing"
• "Althing is also the oldest surviving parliament in the world" => "Althing is the oldest surviving parliament in the world"
• "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible though the remains" => "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible, although the remains"
• "off the South coast of Iceland" - no need for capital S
• "in view of biodiversity, the fish" - change the comma to a semi-colon
• "The shape and functions of these houses were changing over time" => "The shape and functions of these houses changed over time"
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you. --Tone 21:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• See FLC criterion 3b 3c. I have the same question here as in the FLC for List of World Heritage Sites in Finland: what is in this list that isn't in, and shouldn't be in, the larger List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe? (Personally, I don't think this is a fatal objection ... there's an argument that more text could be added to this list ... but others may disagree.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this now. The general list is so-so, since it mostly includes copy-paste descriptions from the UNESCO sites, has no maps, and provides little content related to the tentative list. So, if there are enough entries on either list, a separate article makes sense. I'll address the other comments later. --Tone 10:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I probably have time for just one review of these, so I'll go have another look at Finland. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chidgk1

• Perhaps add an article description
• Perhaps shorten the beginning to something like:

"The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites are places of cultural or natural importance; as described in the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, accepted by Iceland in 1995. Natural sites Surtsey and Vatnajökull National Park were added in 2008 and 2019. Þingvellir National Park was listed back in 2004 as a cultural site, and is now on the tentative list both for nature and as a part of a new transnational Viking heritage nomination."

• Then maybe add more in the lede about the other tentative list sites and/or something else - such as how locals and tourists feel about the list

• I made a few minor copyedits but these 2 sentences are confusing me: "The turf house tradition was brought to Iceland by the first settlers and has evolved from the longhouses built from timber and covered by turf. The shape and functions of these houses changed over time, adapting to local climate and the needs of the people." So were the first ones in Iceland the longhouses,or were those the ones in the settlers previous homeland but there was no timber in Iceland, or maybe they started with the original style but ran out of timber? Maybe also add an example of how they evolved.

If you have time to do a bit more which might help a smidgen to save a few glaciers from climate change could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Thank you for the edits. I rewrote the turf part which was indeed confusing. I would stick with the intro as it is in the standard form considering other lists, and I usually even get complaints that they are too short. What locals feel about the list is perhaps out of the scope here, or at least some good sources would be required. I'll have a look at the coal power stations soon. --Tone 09:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• "Two further sites were added in 2008 (Surtsey) and 2019 (Vatnajökull National Park)." The brackets looks clumsy to me. How about "Two further sites were added, Surtsey in 2008 and Vatnajökull National Park in 2019."
• Þingvellir National Park in the tentative list could be expanded.
• "The structure of a turf house is built from timber and they are covered by turf." Ungrammatical change from singular to plural.
• Looks fine apart from these minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: Done! The Þingvellir section in the tentative list as a serial nomination already covers the above description, being the parliament and Viking legacy, so I though it was enough. --Tone 17:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sorry I missed this. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TRM[edit]

Comments Support from Shearonink[edit]

• The one table entry with a blue background should have a key at that table. I was about to ask the reason when I finally saw the key elsewhere.
• The Turf House Tradition has an inserted Wikilink to the article about generic turf houses. The Wikilinkage would seem to be more appropriate in the paragraph explaining the Icelandic variant not in the overall Title for that particular Tentative Nomination.

Overall, well-written & interesting. I'll do another deep-dive to see if I find anything else - if not, I'm inclined to support. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:, @Shearonink:, I'm through. As for the glacier reference, this is only about being the Europe's second largest glacier, which the other reference does not say, so I wouldn't move it. As for the turf houses, I agree and I moved the wikilink to the text. There does not seem to be a dedicated page, but tentative pages sometimes do not have them. WHS should. Not sure about "the" on sorting, I leave you the decision whether to change it or not. --Tone 15:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Shearonink (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – I found one issue that should be addressed: reference 7 needs an access date. Otherwise, the reliability and formatting of the sources look fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Done! --Tone 09:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list, as the title suggests, comprises the pre-dreadnought type battleships built for the British Royal Navy - the Brits built so many battleships we had to split the lists into pre- and post-Dreadnought types to keep them manageable. I wrote the list last year and it passed a Milhist A-class review in February. I think it should be up to snuff, but I look forward to correcting any issues reviewers detect. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Guerillero[edit]

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well written and organized. The images for each ship are very good as well. ~ HAL333 00:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The article is clear well written. Perhaps it can be made more clear in the lead what set the Royal Sovereigns apart from earlier ironclad (British) battleships? It now says ‘introduced the standard layout associated with pre-dreadnought’. I am no expert but the layout of the preceding Trafalgar-class battleships looks somewhat similar. Was it the type of guns, armor, superstructure that set them apart. Pindanl (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good idea - how does this note sound to you? Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good to me.Pindanl (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This list is in fine shape. A few nitpicks:

Lead

• "over the combined French and Russian fleets"
  • Added
• "led to the eight-ship King Edward VII class"
  • Done

Body

• any reason why individual ships aren't linked at first mention in the narrative?
  • Not really - should be linked now
• any reason why the ships in the tables aren't consistently listed in order of commissioning? What's the rationale for the order?
  • No, and that's a good question - I didn't do anything to the order of the tables when I overhauled the list. They should be fixed now
• The conversion rounding on HMS Renown's guns could be tightened, the ship article says 254 mm?
  • Done
• can you check the displacement of the Majestic class? Looks like LT and tons have been swapped here?
  • Good catch
• "where Ocean and Goliath were"
  • Good catch
• the Canopus-class battleship table is headed Summary of the Majestic class
  • Fixed
• the displacement of the Duncan class is standard, not full load
  • Fixed
• suggest "torpedoed by the U-boat UB-50" as you have done earlier
  • Done
• the conversion of the displacement on the KEVII class table is rounded differently from the article
  • Fixed
• not for this list, but the laid down date for Dominion in the KEVII-class article says 25 May 1902, not 23 May 1902
  • Typo in that article, I think
• "sunk by the U-boat U-21"
  • Done

That's all I could find. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Another list of ships this'll be (probably) a long review. Royal Sovereign class

• for most of the pre-dreadnoughts built in Britain.[2][3][4][1] Re-order the refs here.
  • Fixed - adding the note mentioned above screwed up the ref order
• Link Revenge, Royal Oak, Empress of India, Royal Sovereign, Ramilies, Hood, Repulse and Resolution.
  • Done per PM's comment above
• refits except Hood, and afterward they were placed American afterward.
  • What's the British equivalent?
    • We say "afterwards". If the Hood was also put in reserve by 1904-1905 how about "Starting in 1900, all members of the class in the Mediterranean were recalled to Britain for refits except Hood, and by 1904–1905 they had all been put in reserve." But if they were all put in reserve during 1904-1905 how about "Starting in 1900, all members of the class in the Mediterranean were recalled to Britain for refits except Hood, and in 1904–1905 they were all placed in reserve."Chidgk1 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Nate long time no see. Anyway, could you please address this it's the last one who should be addressed before I'll give a support? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• After the start of the First World War in August 1914 WWI started in July maybe you could say "After the British entered the war in August 1914"?
  • Good point
• Why is there in the Fate part a date when HMS Hood was sunk while the rest and their "broken up" don't have the day nor even the month?
  • Because the scuttling was a discrete event that took place on a single day and the process of breaking up a ship the size of a battleship is not (i.e., it takes many months, years even, and precise dates are less relevant [and generally not available in any case])

Centurion class

• Link Centurion and Barfleur.
  • Fixed as above
• She moved to Chinese waters in 1898 Wait about whom are we talking about?
  • Barfleur - Centurion was already on the China station - I figured the name didn't need to be repeated because of the context, but I can add it if it's not clear - let me know
• I believe the image of HMS Centurion should have more descriptions like maybe a year or so?
  • Added

I don't really have much time today so I'll continue tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time - we're not going anywhere ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Renown

• again to carry the Duke and Duchess of Connaught MOS:EGG here.
  • No it's not - there was only the one couple of carried the title, so it's not unclear to whom the link refers
• Pipe India to British India.
  • Done

Majestic class

• Pipe Russia and Japanese to the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan.
  • Done
• Japanese Shikishima class and the battleship Mikasa Please clarify that these class were battleships.
  • Isn't it clear from the context? We're talking about how the Majestics were the benchmark of battleship design, and if the Shikishimas were copies, what else could they be?
• Like in the Centurion class section may be better clarification of the image is needed?
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this
    • Is it possible to give more info in the image and let's say in the others too? An image with only the name of the ship is a little bit vague; I also am not an expert in the images policy but in general, they look odd to me.
      • Many of them don't have a year - the caption for the photo of Mars is, helpfully, "between 1896 and 1920".

The rest will continue later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canopus class

• and Ocean supported operations in Africa British Africa is pretty big if you ask the Britons themselves can you at least clarify where or in which part of the continent.
  • Yes, and they operated all throughout Africa - Albion patrolled South Africa and took part in the campaign against German Southwest Africa

Formidable class

• serving in succession in the Channel Link Channel and unlink English Channel next.
  • That "Channel" refers to the Channel Fleet, which is already linked
• Don't understand why HMS Formidable isn't at the top in the table?
  • No doubt whoever created the table initially ordered it on which vessel was commissioned first, and I didn't notice that when I redid it

Gonna continue and I'll also reply to the rest of your responses tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward VII class

• It's strange that not all the ships are mentioned in the section's body?
  • They generally operated as a single unit, and it's much easier (and tidier) to simply refer to them as a squadron, rather than listing them out individually. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from PMG[edit]

Is link to Bibliography of 18th–19th century Royal Naval history really needed in this list? I am asking because I don`t see additional value - there is References section in article. PMG (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but I also don't think it's doing any harm - it was in the See also section when I rewrote the list, so I left it. It isn't intended to function as a replacement to the References section, though. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Woody[edit]

I haven't got much to say to be fair. The images add to the text and are suitably licensed. The references are of good quality. The prose flows well. I've got a couple of comments:

• I tweaked a wikilink in the Sovereign Class to go to Cretan State via a redirect with potential.
• In Majestic Class, what is the 1892 programme? The Renown section says 1892 construction programme but the concept of a programme or construction programme is never explained (via a wikilink or otherwise in the text).
  • Just the work that was budgeted for that year - major construction programs were generally laid out in laws (whether the Naval Defence Act 1889, the German Naval Laws, etc.), but of course not all ships of a given program could be built at the same time (or in a single year) so the work would be spread out over several fiscal years
• I don't see the point of the see also section. I've been of the mind that a comprehensive article doesn't need a see also section as the links should be in the article. I don't see what the Bibliography article adds and all of the ship name lists are in the navigation box in the lead.
  • That's a fair point - removed.

That's it from me. A good read. Woody (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Woody. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, nothing more from me after another read through so switched to support. Woody (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The ed17[edit]

• Support after a few edits to the lead. Please check them for accuracy! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me - thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [5].[reply]

List of Old Wykehamists[edit]

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list of notable pupils of one of the United Kingdom's oldest schools for featured list because it is now a mature article. I gave it its present structure some years ago, adding many of the citations and images. The list will continue to grow (rather slowly) when people from the school become notable. I hope reviewers will find it interesting and informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a few little tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

Right - that's my nitpicking over. It's a grand list, fully meriting the bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

(WikiCup entry)

• Support my myriad comments addressed to my satisfaction, very good work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One last question, how do you know this list is comprehensive? Are you sure that other alumni haven't been overlooked? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list cannot be comprehensive as the boundary of notability is constantly being explored with new articles on Old Wykehamists of long ago, and as new members clearly worthy of note (like Rishi Sunak) continually appear. However, the list is mature in the sense that it has been developed over many years now, and has been contributed to by many hands. If Wikipedia had a core of 'specially notable' people, they would certainly all be present. Or to put it another way, if another encyclopedia developed such a list, it would be substantially similar to this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, so that means it really should have ((incomplete list)) added to it I believe. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, done, that is formally correct but it does seem a bit drastic! Probably others will discuss the matter 'in slow time'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Woody[edit]

This is following on from TRM above, but I'm sorry at the moment I have some concerns surrounding the scope and how comprehensive the list is: so FL criteria namely 2 and 3.

• FLCR2: "It... defines the scope and inclusion criteria." The lead doesn't define the scope and inclusion criteria for the list. What are you defining as notable, or in terms of the lead what do you take as "distinguishing themselves?" Where is the line drawn? This becomes particularly pertinent for say sportspeople, is it playing one game in a top league, is it winning the league, is it playing internationally? Which barristers are you including? Which politicians: cabinet level, MPs, Privy Counsellors? etc

Only those at the highest level, as defined in the criteria (see below): cabinet level politicians; generals in the army; royal academicians in the arts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FLCR3: It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. I simply can't see how an article with a "this list is incomplete" meets 3a.

That tag is because of TRM above, and against my clear instincts. The list is as comprehensive as much careful editing by many hands could make it. I think that with the new criteria, we should be able to remove it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comment

• We don't normally have categories in see also sections. The list is already in the category and so anyone wanting to go to the category would go to the normal category link,

Fair enough, removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extraordinary amount of work that has gone into this article and having almost 400 correctly formatted citations is in itself an achievement. I can't support at the moment though as I don't feel it has an adequate scope and inclusion criteria. Put another way, what justifies someone's inclusion in this list vice the 1,356 people in Category:People educated at Winchester College? Woody (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are free to hold that view, which I'm sorry to hear. I and other editors have included the Old Wykehamists who have distinguished themselves as described in the introduction and the body of the list. There are marginally-notable people who have had articles created for them; obviously I'm not responsible for the notability criteria. Attempting to include all is, I'm sure, pointless; if that's really the only way any such list can be defined then of course it's impossible to bring any such school list to FLC, which I think would be a sad outcome. Very few schools are as old as Winchester, and few have had such a distinguished list of former pupils. The list as it stands is of clear encyclopedic interest whether readers are interested in education, politics, or any of the fields in which Old Wykehamists have distinguished themselves. I doubt if I can do anything to convince you, though if there is anything you want done, feel free to say what it is and I'll address it, but perhaps other editors will feel able to take this list as it is, a solid contribution to the lists here on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t disagree that it is a good list and it is certainly a solid contribution to the lists here on Wikipedia but it doesn’t meet the Featured List Criteria, namely 2 and 3. I certainly don’t think that all of the people who have an article on Wikipedia should be on this list. My issue is that this list, as it stands, does not have an objective set of inclusion criteria. There is nothing to say why they are included, what distinguishes one cricketer from another, or one politician from another? What distinguishes them? If you develop an objective criteria section in the lead then I would support it as it would then meet the FLC criteria. Something along the lines of: national recognition; for politicians: members of the privy council or cabinet post; for sportspeople: represented their country etc. Woody (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's do that; I've extended the lead as you propose. Happy to tweak the criteria slightly but the level is I think pretty clear. Do you think for sportspeople it's enough to represent the country once, or would three times be better? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I level is clearer but not a defined criteria yet. Nor do some of the people in the list meet the newly established criteria. From the first 2 I checked: why is Lionel Johnson included? Same for Thomas Arnold? In terms of representing their country, that is up to you but 1 seems fine, particularly given the time scale (ie 100 years ago they played significantly less games than the modern era). Woody (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woody: Fair enough. I've checked through the list and removed 78 individuals using the new criteria. On those examples, happy to drop Johnson as a minor poet, but Arnold was one of the great headmasters with a national reputation. Happy to sharpen the criteria further, if you'll let me know what needs adjusting or clarifying. For early sportsmen, one competitive match may be enough, but that must be for a county team or above; playing a few times for their university is not sufficient (specially if it's out for a duck). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support on images from Shearonink[edit]

• All of the 18th Century and earlier portraits/Commons files lack the applicable/pertinent/specific United States public domain tags, the one that seems applicable would be ((PD-US-expired)).

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of the 19th Century images lack a/an US public domain tag.

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the photos after Christopher Miles have appropriate tagging/licensing information.

Noted.

• The Christopher Miles image is problematic because of the uploader's claimed authorship. Merlin Energy claims ownership of 2 different Miles images, separated by 33 years...which is indeed possible but seems highly improbable...

Removed, just in case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping accessibility & MOS:ACCIM in mind all the images are lacking alt text.

Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh that was a bit of work, all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Much improved, however these 2 images still lack alt-text: William of Wykeham, Sir Henry Wotton. Once the alt-text for these two images is taken care of I will be able to support re: images. Shearonink (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Shearonink (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [6].[reply]

List of largest cruise ships[edit]

Nominator(s): Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time cleaning up this list line-by-line, and I believe it is accurate and fully referenced enough to qualify as a featured list. A peer review only uncovered a minor copyediting detail, which has been resolved. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs an actual lead. Consider mentioning info from Timeline of largest passenger ships in it. Looking at just the source for Symphony of the Seas, "Double" and "Maximum" passengers needs to be clarified as guests vs. including crew. This can be done in the lead, but is this consistent? Citation 9 for the Costa Smeralda does not appear to mention 5,224 in it: citation 10 says 6,554 passengers and 8,200 passengers and crew. These were the only two I even checked... Reywas92^Talk 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reywas92: I've expanded the lead a bit. Both "Double" and "Maximum" are under a heading that says "Passenger capacity", hence why the Smeralda lists 6554. Symphony of the Seas (and all the other rows, as far as I know) only list passenger capacity, excluding crew. By default, double occupancy is twice the number of cabins unless specified otherwise (some ships have "single" rooms that are not doubled when counting double occupancy), but I'll clarify that in the lead. Not sure what's going on with passenger citation in the Smeralda line however -- I could've sworn that the passenger citation was to the manufacturer (Meyer Werft), I must've kept the wrong one when I was pruning. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 03:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reywas92: I've vastly expanded the lead since late February, and clarified all of the column headings. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of it is decent, but a lot is just generic information about cruise ships. "Operators of cruise ships are known as cruise lines, which are companies that market cruises to the public." "Cruise ships require electricity for powering both hotel services and for propulsion." Certain brands being for party ships or classic elegance is irrelevant to this list – Holland America isn't even in the list! The WP:LEAD should focus more on summarizing the rest of the article, so it should relate explicitly how the biggest ships are the party ships, or perhaps which new ones use LNG. The intros to the sections are great, but if I just read the lead without knowing the page's title, I'd have no idea what was coming next. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Reywas92: Thanks for the feedback. Some of that text was copied from Cruise ship with the intention to reword it to relate to ship size, but I seem to have forgotted to do that in some places. I have updated it to try to tie it back to size -- for example, the intention with the Carnival vs. Holland America was to point out that Carnival has larger ships while Holland America has smaller ones. With the electricity sentence, the goal was to point out that using electricity for propulsion has allowed ships to grow longer, but I hadn't made that clear (it should be fixed now). I had also intended to point out that the switch to LNG required larger ships since the fuel takes up more space, but upon reviewing the sources, it turns out that there are ways around that, so I removed the LNG mention from the lead. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• The paragraph above the first table is not really a summary of the table, but it appears to be footnotes of the table itself, but in paragraph form? Suggest moving "Year indicates the year the ship originally entered service, which in some cases may not the year it started service under the listed cruise line or with the listed name." to a footnote beside the year column. The remainder can be a footnote for appropriate sections for example "Registro Italiano Navale only list length between perpendiculars, not length overall," should be a footnote for every ship in which this is true.
• Phrases like "The following is a list of cruise ships" is no longer considered acceptable for featured lists as it is tautological, and should be removed. The entire second paragraph reads like the same description of the table itself, not the contents of the table, which is what the lead should be. Once this information about the list is moved to footnotes or legend where appropriate. After this there is not much of a lead left. A lead should summarize the contents of the table. And needs quite a bit of work.
• The on order section requires similar work, there is no paragraph describing the contents of the list, just another footnote related comment.

Overall, there is a serious lack of information in the lead, and in the two subsections, both of which are required for featured list. Remember the lead is to provide context, and summarize the contents of the table, not instructions on how to read the table itself.

Oppose for now, as there requires quite a bit of work to bring this up to standards. The table itself is pretty good though, so I can scratch my opposition once the lead and two subsections contains some prose. Mattximus (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Thanks for the thoughtful review. One quick question: WP:SALLEAD says that the lead should make direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. Do you have any advice on doing this without a "The following is a list of..." sentence? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That link provides a checklist of exactly what is missing...!

• begin with a lead section that summarizes its content (maybe what is the largest current ship, or any other ship of significance, you need to talk about the ships from your tables, especially in relation to their size)
• provides any necessary background information (this could involve history)
• gives encyclopedic context (including linking to other pages)
• Makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected - to answer your question, something like this "There are x cruise ships over x tonnes currently in service" is better than "this is a list of cruise ships over x tonnes". This should be done before each table.

Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: I've added text to the lead and to the two sections. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is much better now! I strike my oppose. I would add two things however. First, I would put an image of the world's largest cruise ship right at the top (with a caption stating it's name and the fact that it's the largest, with alt-text), and I would add one line at the end of the first paragraph of the lead mentioning that Symphony of the Seas is the largest and give its gross tonnage. Both these changes don't warrant an oppose so I will preemptively Support. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:  Done Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed the year ordered does not sort properly due to the addition of "May". There are date template that I believe can fix this. Mattximus (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mattximus: There are templates such as ((Date table sorting)), but in this case I just removed the month, since the column is titled "Year (planned)", not "Date (planned)". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support really nice piece of work, well done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked all of the fixes above, and the only outstanding issue I see is that ref 174 still has the all caps in part of the title. Nice work fixing the rest of the concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1967[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With 46 of these lists already having reached FL status, here's the next in the sequence. In this particular year, the two main claimants for the title of "first lady of country music" both reached the top of the chart for the first time....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another great article. ~ HAL333 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Nice work. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [8].[reply]

List of Boy Scout calendar illustrations[edit]

Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a 6 year long labor of love to research this article and try to create as many articles about the paintings as possible. I think the list of paintings meets the criteria --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I knew there had to be a good reason for the lack of images, copyright makes complete sense. You have my support. Aza24 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: thanks for the quick replies, and the list looks very good in every aspect. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [9].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Giorgio Moroder[edit]

Nominator(s): Leo Mercury (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article mentions all the most important awards won by the artist and it meets the criteria. Leo Mercury (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Blisspop (reference 4) doesn't sound like that reliable of a source. Do we even need it, given that two other sources support his nickname?
• The all caps in ref 6 should be removed.
• The book used in ref 15 could use a page number for verifiability purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I did not put a page number for ref 15 (now ref 14), instead I used a Google Books link that brings you directly to the quoted page. --Leo Mercury (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ HAL333 18:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good prose in the lead, all the award references good and can't find any significant accolades omitted from the article. Interesting to see one of these lists for something where the bulk of the awards were pre-internet, and a very interesting figure. Just the nitpicks above. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 21:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Leo Mercury, will oppose conditional on these comments if there's no response in a couple of days. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done all the corrections. --Leo Mercury (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: happy with the replies above and the implemented changes. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [10].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Community[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) — Bilorv (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cult favorite, Community is a meta-love letter to television and film, exploring and using tropes while also examining them. The show has had a huge and dedicated fandom since its release in 2009, but with its recent re-emergence on Netflix and some public cast get-togethers, it's gaining a fair bit more traction. The show was critically acclaimed but never huge in mainstream awards. I'm co-nominating this list with RunningTiger123, who has done most of the work on creating and expanding the list, which surprisingly didn't exist until April and has been long overdue for years. — Bilorv (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• The format of awards/nominations lists consisting of lots of tiny tables has been deprecated for quite some time. Everything should be in one table (see e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Scarlett Johansson) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Bilorv to get his thoughts. The page was modeled after similar featured lists such as Black Mirror and Parks and Rec, but we can look into changing the format if that's the new standard. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm rather confused given that the page you point to isn't an FL yet and there are at least dozens of current FLs with the multiple table format, the most recent one of which I contributed to being promoted in December 2018 (Black Mirror, linked above). If the multiple table format has been deprecated then could you point us to where this was established? — Bilorv (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't offhand point to exactly where it was established, but certainly all "awards and noms" FLs that I have seen promoted in the last year or so have been in the new format e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue, List of awards and nominations received by Margaret, List of awards and nominations received by Dua Lipa, List of awards and nominations received by Emilia Clarke, List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones, List of awards and nominations received by Stranger Things, List of awards and nominations received by BTS, List of awards and nominations received by Exo, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Curiouser and curiouser. I see a mention of the standard changing in Exo but again, no pointer to a discussion. Do you think you could suggest a venue where we could ask about this? My first two thoughts, Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards, don't look very active. Presumably if the standard suddenly changed 12-18 months ago then there was a wide discussion about it. I think we're both happy to change the format if it's a requirement, but I'd like to see why the convention was changed and where. — Bilorv (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The best I have found so far is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey/archive1 (May 2018), where The Rambling Man said that the format of using lots of little tables (resulting in a massive TOC in some cases) did not look good and recommended changing to the format used by the then-existing FL List of accolades received by Call Me by Your Name, and pretty much every similar list since then has followed the same format............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Appreciate that your Black Mirror list was promoted after that - I don't remember noticing that one at the time....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I totally agree with Chris. Addition of heading for each award does nothing–except for adding extra bytes for the list. Seriously, why do I need to know this...., The Comedy Awards were presented by the television network Comedy Central for comedy in American television, film and other media. The first awards were given in 2011. I can just click on the article that is linked (if I wanted to know more)....... "The International Press Academy present the Satellite Awards in television, film, radio and other media" this is a piece of useless information. If you need help with merging tables I can assist you with that. Wikipedia:Wall of text is about long post to a noticeboard or talk page discussion but it applies here as well.~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Alright, if RunningTiger123 is happy then let's run with this and change the format. I think the pair of us can handle the format change, but if you're interested in leaving a review CAPTAIN MEDUSA, perhaps once we've reshuffled everything, then that would be much appreciated. — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I actually just finished a merged table in my sandbox. If it looks good, I can move it over. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hi RunningTiger123, It looks good but I am not a big fan of small text (Derek R. Hill (production designer)). ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'm going to ping Bilorv on this again. While some articles don't use small text, others do, including featured lists (see Black Mirror and The Simpsons). I think the other articles use it to distinguish between nominees and extra information. If there has been a change to consensus, I'm more than happy to make the change, but I want to make sure the decision is consistent. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This falls under web accessibility. The small text is quite difficult to read. It's like a Text next to a Text. You have lean more closer to your monitor to read. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                        • To be honest, I was wondering about this one. Still can't find clear instruction in MOS:ACCESS but I think we should lean on the safe side and make the text normal-sized. — Bilorv (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Amazing, thanks for doing this. Go ahead and move it over, yeah. — Bilorv (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead

• No need to wikilink Yahoo! Screen twice
  • Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the table

• People's names should sort based on surname. Currently they sort on forename.
  • Yep, done. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I made one little tweak to the notes which was easier to just do than to list here, and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't find any reference problems --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Add caption for the lead image

• Is a caption necessary for the image, or would it be redundant? I think the infobox is comparable to the one used in the FL List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones, which does not have a caption. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a better ALT text

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• documentary spoofs → mockumentary?

• For now, I'm going to leave it as is because it more closely aligns with the linked articles' descriptions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• gaining a cult following → more sources

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Add sources at the end of a sentence. This makes it easier for the reader to find sources they are looking for rather than searching around.

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What are the characters the actors play? Maybe introduce them in lead

• Instead of listing the characters individually, I added a link to the page List of Community characters. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been thinking and reckon it's good to list the characters' common name in brackets after the actor—added for now but let me know if you disagree. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Several episodes → link List of Community episodes

• I amended a sentence in the first paragraph to include the link to List of Community episodes. Let me know if this works. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The third season → link Community (season 3)
• fourth season → link Community (season 4)
• fifth season → link Community (season 5)
• the sixth aired → link Community (season 6)

• Individual season links added. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive sources

• I'm going to ping Bilorv on this one, since he did the archiving for most of the sources already. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rest should now be archived. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a better short description

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a better title to the list. Maybe 'Awards and nominations'

• For clarification, do you think this should be used or the full title like you have in the sronly template below? RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Changed "List" to "Awards and nominations" for now.) — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do nominees(s) have a break? eg.

Steven Sprung and Peter B. Ellis

(for "A Fistful of Paintballs")

• This was modeled on the FL List of awards and nominations received by Parks and Recreation. Personally, I think it adds clarity by preventing text wrapping in the middle of the episode title, but I can change it if you think it would help. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It flows better in the same line. See List of awards and nominations received by Scarlett Johansson for example. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• |+ Awards and nominations received by Community → |+ Awards and nominations received by ''Community'' ((sronly|Awards and nominations received by ''Community''))

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it from me. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Nice work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA:: I know you already gave support, but I wanted to follow up on one point you made. You suggested changing the table title to use the ((sronly)) template, but that makes the title in plain text redundant. However, other featured lists seem to just use the title with no need for ((sronly)). Do you think we should hide the title and use the template or just write out the title for the table so that it's visible? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It helps people with a screen reader. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • So are both the plain text and the template needed, or just the template? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • My understanding is that ((sronly|text here)) appears exactly the same to a screen reader user as text here, but doesn't display at all to a visual reader—this is what the documentation says. So the point is surely to use ((sronly)) but not have the same text in plaintext, otherwise a screenreader user hears it read out twice in succession, and the sighted user still sees the redundant table title. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: is this your understanding too? — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Bilorv and RunningTiger123: This might answer your question.

              Since FLC mandates that nominations follow ACCESS, this means that they'll need to start having captions. In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the template, e.g. "|+ ((sronly|Example table caption))" instead of "|+ Example table caption".

              — PresN, Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#RFC that will effect us
              • Thanks, that's really helpful! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The list is featured worthy. ~ HAL333 15:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [11].[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1990–2004)[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next in the series, follows the format established in the previous FLs. I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! As always, all feedback appreciated. (I have an open FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of winners of the New York City Marathon/archive1, but that has three supports and no outstanding concerns.) Harrias ^talk 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "England won more matches than they lost against Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sri Lanka the West Indies" - missing comma

• Oops, added. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "who they beat by 329 runs" => "whom they beat by 329 runs"

• I never know which to use. Switched. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The image caption needs a source

• Added. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The England cricket team represented Scotland until 1992, when they" - ambiguous as to who "they" are

• Clarified. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me. Great work overall :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Cheers, responded to all above. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Seems ok to me, happy to support the nom. Drat8sub (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support gets my vote. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [12].[reply]

2019 in cue sports[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because there hasn't been a "year in X" article for featured status before, and all tournaments have been cited. Please let me know your thoughts on the article. I haven't created an FL before, so bare with me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It could use an image. You should also expand the lede and source anything which isn't sourced later. ~ HAL333 15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think all of the information in the lede is currently cited by the lists, but I can certainly expand on that. Any ideas what type of image would be suitable? Maybe one of Judd Trump? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. One showing him in action in 2019 would be great. ~ HAL333 20:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly snooker images aren't exactly super up-to-date. I've included the newest version of an image of him as I could (as an aside, most other players either do not have images, or are significantly more out of date!) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A solid article. ~ HAL333 02:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

I really like this article. I've added in a couple of tournaments that I think are worthy of inclusion. The list could get long, but there might be some items at the Asian Confederation of Billiard Sports site worth including, e.g. SEA games and Asian Championship. Similarly, anything that's a qualifying event for the main professional tour (as mentioned here) might make the grade. And Snooker at the 2019 African Games maybe? (I'm willing to help as well as to throw suggestions in!) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, happy to add BennyOnTheLoose you got a short list, and I'll get them on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of events in. Billiards and snooker at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games might be worth including too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in the SEA games BennyOnTheLoose - I was surprised the website is already down for the event! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar issue with some of the 2019 African Games pages already being unavailable. I'm happy to support the article being an FL - I'm not an expert on FL requirements but looks to me like the list is comprehensive, with suitable supporting text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper sources it is! No worries, I'll be using this a template for future articles. A good practice might be to archive the websites whilst they are up from future! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]