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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is comprehensive enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have these, but: if the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead of !scope=row.
• 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 19:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment is that the various Chopras all sort randomly if you resort the "recipient(s)" column. When I just sorted it, all the Chopras were together but in the order Yash > Aditya > Yash > Pamela > Aditya > Yash > Aditya. The best way to resolve this is to use the sortname template rather than sort. So, instead of having {{sort|Chopra|[[Yash Chopra]]}} have {{sortname|Yash|Chopra}}. Same with the two Singhs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Hello! I appreciate you for always reviewing my FL nominations. I hope this one doesn't bother you; do you know how to close an FL nomination? I've getting busier in my life and I don't think I'll have time to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Waiting for your response! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. @FLC director and delegates: - see above.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, after several months and years of work, I believe it has reached a level of quality where it can be nominated here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 475 citations. That's a tall order. GamerPro64 02:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very good work on this article. But I think it's more accurately described as an article, rather than a list. This is just a suggestion, but I think it'd be better to nominate this as a featured article instead; or a good article. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: I think he tried once but got reverted due to this.Tintor2 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not a list, this is clearly an article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather confused now. On the 4th of July my nomination for GA was cancelled because it was considered list, and now I am told that I should do a GAN or FAN instead. The article in TP is still marked as a list, anyway. I honestly wouldn't know what to say.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is what the page looked like before you started working on it, so I can understand why it'd be classified as a list back then. But given the extensive amount of work you've put into this page since then and the plethora of information available, this page is not just a mere list. Especially given the existence and extensive size of the "Conception", "Characteristics", "In other media", "Cultural references and interpretations", and "Cultural impact" sections. Whoever looked at the page at its current state and told you it was a list that couldn't be nominated as a good article didn't know what they were talking about. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Apologies for piling on, but I agree with the above conversation that this is an article and not a list so this is not the appropriate venue for this nomination. Sorry. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. You have nothing to apologise for, Aoba. By now it is obvious that the article is not to be considered a list and that the user who sent me back here by cancelling the GAN was in all good faith wrong. I'd suggest to archive this, since it's now apodictic.-TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respect and appreciate your response. It is never a great feeling to get these kinds of comments, but you have taken a very positive and constructive perspective on that. I wish that I was able to keep my cool that well during situations like this one lol. You have done a lot of great work on this article and that should be commended. Best of luck with the future GAN if you decide to pursue that path. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Agree with above. Unfortunately this is now an article. Fantastic work though on improving this as a fellow Neon Genesis Evangelion fan and do not be disheartened. I wish you well. Cowlibob (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, good luck at GAN! --PresN 13:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first FLC, though not the first list article I have worked extensively on. Having worked on the film article this awards list relates to (and, more specifically, having had a news alert for that), I know it is a comprehensive list of all accolades received which are sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia list article. It has been in draft until yesterday because of a simmering but ongoing discussion over the color of certain awards results boxes - the main issue being over "pending" and, with the last pending awards for this film announced yesterday, that is no longer an issue. I hope that the perceived newness (it has been a public draft, and other editors have contributed if just by adding and updating the awards table on the film article, which this replaces) does not work against the FLC, but understand if it does. In keeping with featured lists of the same scope, the prose is all in the lead, with some notes throughout the sectioned tables. I believe this prose to be well-written and properly sourced, but welcome comments for improvement. Similarly, any comments to improve the sectioning, too, are welcome. The ref formatting is a style derived from harv refs which I began using a few years ago, and which has been warmly welcomed by others as a style particularly helpful to readers looking for refs, but I of course also welcome feedback on this (including if the sub-headers "News", "Web", etc. should indeed by sub-headers rather than bold text). Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For the infobox image, I would expand the caption to include where it was taken to provide the full context to readers. I would also add ALT text to the image.
• I am uncertain about the current placement of the short film paragraph at the end of the lede. The second paragraph mentions that this film was adapted, but it is not immediately clear until the end of the lede that it was adapted from a short. I understand the rationale for its inclusion as it is part of the film's awards reception, but would it be possible to integrate into the prose earlier rather than sectioning it off at the end?
• What makes Hetedik Sor a strong enough source to mention in the lead? To be clear, I do not have any issue with it, and I just want to get a clearer understanding of this as I have not heard of this website before.
• Shouldn't this line, the ceremony marked a return to fully in-person events, have a small bit about the COVID-19 context to how this return to in-person events is notable?
• While this quote, "were seen toasting with champagne several times", is cute, I do not think it is notable or particularly informative enough to put in the lede or the list in general.
• For the MVFF citation at the bottom of the page, I would avoid putting "Behind the Screens" in all caps even if the site did that. In general, I would avoid all caps unless it is an acronym so I would also avoid instances when the film title is presented this way.

Great work with this list. I have heard a lot about this film, mostly from film critics who believe this movie should have received attention from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but I have not actually watched it. I get what the Vulture citation is saying about why it did not receive major nomination, but in my opinion, it more so boils down to that it was not picked up by a major distributor and did not get the awards campaign that other films did. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll respond down here to make who's saying what clearer.

• I've added these; I had believed that alt text was not necessary when the comment described the image sufficiently, but have added some basic alt text anyway.
• I have both moved the sentence about the short film, to follow the sentence in the second paragraph where the adapted screenplay is mentioned, and I have edited the short film sentence for flow.
• Hetedik Sor, from reading the website and looking at its references on the Hungarian Wikipedia, is a website akin to Gold Derby and AwardsWatch: a film awards season/Oscars race website that may serve as a year-round bookies but is popular and reliable for film coverage during awards season. At least one film article on the Hungarian Wikipedia also uses the website as an external link along with IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes (Birds of Passage (film), so not a small film, either). The 'editorials' of GoldDerby and AwardsWatch do not commonly rank films by number of all awards, which is why they are not used here. Hetedik Sor, as I see it, is an equivalent source.
• I have added "following the COVID-19 pandemic" (with wikilink to the impact on cinema article); as the pandemic is not really over, any better wording suggestions would be appreciated.
• I have removed this (I also thought it was cute).
• I have removed all-caps where I've seen it; if there are any instances I've missed, please tell me!

Thank you! While Utopia did their absolute best to promote the movie, and made more of a name for themselves in the process, I have to agree with you; I was watching the Indie Spirits and, there, the director said that they had no money and it was nice that the Spirits gave awards to films that couldn't afford to campaign (i.e. Shiva Baby) - but I haven't seen that soundbite repeated in any source (though they're probably doing her a favor, as you expect some people would interpret it as a dig at the Oscars). Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your responses. To be honest, I am not entirely sure if ALT text is helpful, and it is a subject that I really should read more about as I have seen some conflicting opinions about it. I do not have a strong opinion, and I only brought it because it is something that seems expected for featured content. Thank you for the explanation for the Hetedik Sor source. That makes sense to me. You are right that the pandemic is not over, and I appreciate that you added context to this part of the list. For better or for worse, a lot of the Academy nominations and wins boil down to their campaigns. I doubt CODA would have had the same success if Apple TV+ did not distribute and promote it. I've seen some speculation that CODA wins may translate to bigger company and distributors picking up more films at festivals like the Sundance Film Festival, and I'd be interested in seeing if that really happens. I'd imagine that this film helped Emma Seligman in the end as critics were very positive about it.

• Anyway, apologies for that long paragraph. I support this FLC for promotion. It does look somewhat different than other film awards list which put all the awards and nominations into a singular table, but I can see the advantages to this set-up and I do not really have a strong opinion either way. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't be surprised if more studios picked up films out of festivals, especially streaming; there was actually a Variety (VIP) article that I think was a source in this list but has been replaced, which inferred the same about Shiva Baby and various other TIFF/SXSW/Sundance/general fall festival films - saying that streamers were picking up the audience award winners to try and boost films that would otherwise be acclaimed but obscure. It didn't really happen, but maybe with CODA's win, there will be even more attempts, and surely a few more hits. Apologies for continuing your long paragraph, and thanks for the support! Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: I was looking over the article yesterday, and think it may be improved by swapping the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead (para 2 ending on an Oscars discussion will lead into current para 4 mentioning similar, and the end of current para 4 that kinda mentions lack of campaign will lead into current para 3 starting with another theory of fewer noms) - since you have already indicated support, I wanted to notify you before making the change. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the message. That sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. You actually sort of have a caption with that header bar, so just change it to be a standard caption instead.

• I have done this for the non-collapsible tables. Adding this row, from my attempts to add it, at least, prevent collapsible tables from doing so properly, and these tables are already captioned in the first row, anyway (i.e. the first thing a screen reader will read, even if not labelled as a caption). As suggested, due to the section headers, I have made the captions screen reader only. Kingsif (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, the tables shouldn't be collapsible. The tables are the primary information for the list, and as per MOS:COLLAPSE should not be collapsed or even collapsible as a result. Captions are also not just for reading out by screen readers, but allow screen reader software to jump straight to a named table the same way a visual reader can scroll right to a table since it looks different than plain text. Why do you want the tables to be collapsible? --PresN 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just how I've seen it in similar articles; consistency is what I prioritized before getting into functionality (and my accessibility knowledge is mostly limited to colors). Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]'' becomes !scope=row | ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]''. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.

• @PresN: I have done this for the year-end rankings; the other tables don't already use rowspans, should I also add to those? (The row header box does not seem to be used for these lists among FLs of similar scope, is why I ask). Also, is there any way to center back the text; adding a style parameter doesn't do it. Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, the left-aligning is because of the plainrowheaders class on the table, if you remove that they go back to being centered. When you do that, though, you'll see that you're actually doing some odd things with bolding- you can just remove the bolding marks, it's trying to double-bold them in the cases where you put the italics outside the link but the bolding inside for some reason. If you didn't know, in general, stick all of the ticks outside of the link, and if you want both italics and bold (in general, not in this case) you just use 5 ticks (2 for italics, 3 for bold) like this. And yes, all tables should use rowscopes - !scope=row normally, and !scope=rowgroup if the cell has rowspan=whatever, e.g. | rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]] becomes !scope=row rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]] - note the change to use a ! instead of a | at the beginning, that's what makes it a "header" cell instead of a regular one. --PresN 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Auto-bolding (goes inside) isn't my favorite thing, either ;) Thanks for the headers note. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be all done! Thanks! Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the juried awards section, the recipients currently sort in order of forename. They should sort in order of surname.
• Same with the critics' awards
• also, shouldn't the heading for that section be Critics' awards....?
• Same sorting issue with the media awards
• (The recipients in the festival awards section do support correctly, but I think that may be by coincidence :-) )
• "Shared with Woody Norman for C'mon C'mon." and "Shared with Passing and Pig." are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops
• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: I think I've addressed all these. I've added sortname parameters, suppressing redlinks for all but the first instance. I also haven't sorted by anything other than the film title in the instances of the film and then named cast/crew being nominated/winning - should those be sorted by the first alphabetical surname (e.g. the two Apolo Awards for the film, should one be sorted as "Filmin" and the other as "Agron", or as "Shiva Baby Filmin" and so on?) Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - sorting all looks goot now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still getting used to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated.

• "it won a variety of critics', festival, and media titles;" I think it should be "critic"?
• "it was included on many best-of lists." Who compliled these best-of lists? Was it media companies? Was these best-of film lists, screenplay lists, or something similar?
• "The short film from which it was adapted, also called Shiva Baby and written and directed by Seligman, was released in 2018 and nominated in the Best Narrative Short category at the 2018 South by Southwest film festival." Since this list is about the 2020 film, and not the 2018 short film, I think this sentence is a little off-topic and belongs in the movie's main article instead.
• The lede spends a lot of time on the movie's possible Academy Awards nominations, with one and a half paragraphs talking about it. Since this list is for all awards, not just the Oscars, I would move all the Academy Awards information to one paragraph and trim it.
• " the ceremony marked a return to fully in-person events following the COVID-19 pandemic[22] and, when the film won, the cast and crew all accepted the award on stage." I think this information is more about the award, and less about the film winning the award, and is off-topic for this article. It can be removed.
• "One of the film's stars, Agron, also presented an award at the ceremony." I definitely think this is off-topic for this article and too much detail, and should be removed.
• "Shiva Baby placed on various best-of lists for both 2020, the year of its festival debut, and 2021, when it was released in movie theaters and on streaming. It has been included on overall lists as well as lists specifically for independent, debut, comedy, horror, Jewish, and LGBTQ+ movies." I think this sentence should be cited.
• I think the notes in the list should be in the rank column, as it is explaining why there is no rank for the film on this list.
• Should note a and b have citations?

Those are my thoughts on the prose. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the comments, @Z1720:, I'll again go through from top to bottom. Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please ping me when you are ready for me to take another look. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: See below - I made two edits, but, yeah, your comments had me think a bit, but treating it as the whole coverage as intended/expected? calls for detail. Kingsif (talk)

(edit conflict)

• I don't think so - take away the rest of the list, that would make it "critic titles", and the section to which it refers would have to be "critic awards". Since each award is given by a collective of critics, not a single critic, then pertaining to multiple critics (so, critics') is correct and standard. Both for the titles of awards and as I have seen it across Wikipedia.
• Re. what kind of best-of lists; it is a film, so that seems redundant to restate. Like, it hasn't specified film festival awards, just festival. Of course, one of the lists mentioned in the section is for "moments of 2021"; this and the fact the scope of each list is different would make it impossible to concisely summarize such. So, I think any amendment here is both unnecessary and would result in poor prose.
• The reason I included the mention of the nomination for the 2018 short film, is something that I will refer to when addressing some of your other points: I wrote the prose as if it was an in-depth article looking at the entire background and history of coverage of the awards season for this film. So, its "precursor" film being nominated for an award seems important in that respect. Regarding your suggestion it goes at the film (2020?) article: another, less strong, really, reason for inclusion is that people might be looking for the information at this awards article; the pageviews tool suggests very few people are even looking for the article altogether, but both films share a title (among nearly everything else), and the title of the article is not disambiguated - i.e. the title is "List of accolades received by Shiva Baby", not "List of accolades received by Shiva Baby (2020)". As there is no article for the short film (though there's definitely enough media coverage for one, it's well-covered at the 2020 film article), there isn't a more-appropriate place for this mention, either.

• I think my concern the inclusion of the precursor film is that this is an article about the list of accolades received by the 2020 film. I felt that this sentence, about an award that the 2018 short film received, is not pertinent to this article. In other words, as a reader of this list article, I do not need to know this information. If this is going to be an article about the awards that both the 2018 short film and the 2020 film received, then I think the first sentence will need to specify this, as currently the first sentence says that this list is only about the 2020 film. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the article shouldn't be, kind of, inclusive of the 2018 short film, I didn't mean to suggest that. My main thought was that, well, for a practical example, the article for the film Pieces of a Woman has a whole section on the play it is based on, talking about some specifics that don't seem to have anything to do with the film, but then the techniques from the play were used in the film adaptation. The Shiva Baby article mentions some themes of the short film, that are expanded upon in the 2020 film. So, it makes sense to have "background" information of an original work in a (prose) article about the film adaptations of said works, and so I thought it was appropriate to include similar information here (and, hey, is it not interesting that both short and feature versions were nominated at SXSW?) - of course, I am most familiar with writing prose articles, with relevant-comprehensive-concise background information included... like with your other outstanding point, do you think an explanatory footnote (and this would be at the SXSW table entry) would be an improvement? Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think an explanatory footnote stating that the 2018 short film was also nominated would be more appropriate than putting it in the prose. I don't think this article needs as much background information about the film, as that information is more appropriate in the Shiva Baby parent article. I am always mindful of how much information is in an article, as the more prose there is the less likely readers are going to read the information. It's a careful balance and I tend to lean towards having less information. Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a lot more media discussion of the Oscars than all other awards combined. Cutting down on such would be creating false balance. We base articles on sources; if most of the features on the film's award season discuss the Oscars, a lot of the article prose will discuss the Oscars.

• I agree that there is often lots of media coverage about the Oscars. Upon looking at the article again, I think my original concern was that a paragraph and a half was devoted to speaking about the Oscars in some way. I think I got that impression because of the Hetedik Sor quote. I do not know if there is a fix to this, because the flow does work well, and if there isn't a way to put all the Oscar stuff in one paragraph, then it should just be left as-is. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked at it, and to address what you bring up here, do you think it would work better than the current to end that sentence at "best of the rest", and then put the explanatory information feat. Oscars mention in a footnote? Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that would work. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See the above comment on writing about the whole award season for the film. This includes some context, including the effect of the pandemic, so the first completely in-person ceremony is context for saying the cast and crew were all together accepting the award - which I'd contend is directly about the film winning the award - (continued in next point, about the same part)
• and someone in the cast presenting is the (implicit) contextual information that the organizers were confident in the film's chances. Of course, this is also mentioned more directly, so though it's still part of the film's whole awards season, I'll remove this line as you suggest.
• It's a summary of the table, I don't know it would be "cited" besides adding a note that says "look down"...
• Those notes are in rows that have reference boxes at the end; the refs at the end are for the whole row, including the note. Note c has an inline citation as it uses a quotation. This has reminded me to add such a cite for the FOX alpha note, though.

• This feels like a lot of saying no; I'm not attached to the prose as-is, I honestly don't think the changes suggested in your comments would be an improvement to the article. I hope I've explained why well, and I'm happy to discuss, and welcome to other opinions. Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I wanted to take some time away from this article to (hopefully) give myself a renewed look on the article, or at least try to read it again from a fresh perspective. To keep my comments organised on which point I am speaking to, I have commented below your bullet points above. If I did not respond to the bullet point, it means that I have nothing further to add and I am no longer concerned about it. I am very much in favour of editors telling me why they disagree, and if I feel strongly about something then I will comment further about it. Generally, I am not that bothered by prose differences, so I didn't respond to most of those comments. Thanks for your patience in addressing my comments. I'll try to respond more quickly next time. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for leaving comments! I hope I responded thoughtfully, and I expect you will have done the same, so I will read them (soon) when I have time to properly focus on this. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Added replies :) Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks, and done. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One additional comment:

• "for 2020 and, especially, 2021, it was included on many best-of lists." Lot of commas here. Perhaps, "for 2020, and especially 2021, it was included on many best-of lists." or something similar.

Please ping when ready. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: I've gone with "for 2021, and also 2020, it was…" - the many commas were to keep it grammatically sound while not putting the 2021 mention, really the whole point, in a subordinate clause (which makes it read somewhat like an aside); putting 2021 first seemed to work better, and it matches the order of the tables in that section. Hopefully the achronology isn't an issue, though the paragraph is already basically in reverse order. Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns, per above, have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

The way you're doing sources is technically fine, but legitimately horrifying. It's twice as long for no reason, makes it impossible to go from a source to what it's citing (as opposed to the other way around), and requires you to misuse date fields like "(October 7, 2021b)" so that the sfn links work. Like I said, it's technically fine, though, so, actual issues:

• Most of the sources are fine, except for TIFF2020 where you cite IMDB.
• You're mixing date formats, please standardize on either Month dd, yyyy or yyyy-mm-dd. I guess Month dd, yyyy, since the cite templates complain if you add "a" to the end of a date in the yyyy-mm-dd format.
• Speaking of cite templates complaining, the second one in "press releases" should be cite web, not cite document- document needs a journal name, and that's a pdf on a website
• "the Guardian" should be "The Guardian" everywhere
• You have trans-titles on some non-English cites, but ideally all non-English cite titles should have them. --PresN 22:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• legitimately horrifying I mean, okay. Your reasons aren't really detrimental and a big benefit is that it's a more visual-fronted system that aids readers, but whatever.
• WP:CITEIMDB; since awards are not user-editable, it is in the "meh" section. There hasn't been recent discussion on moving it, but last there was, there were concerns with some awards listed at IMDb being indiscriminate; since that concern is otherwise handled with different policy, and in this case as a supporting ref, it's acceptable.
• I'll standardize the other things you bring up; I haven't had a lot of time recently but should be done by end of week if not much sooner. Kingsif (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: Including removing the superfluous IMDb ref, addressed everything now. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally don't think the "Best-of lists" section should be included. It's fairly indiscriminate, and it sets a bad precedent. Imagine if a more "popular" film (at least in terms of awards buzz) like The Power of the Dog or Dune had a similar table – with inclusion standards like this, it would easily have several hundred entries, overwhelming the article. For instance, Metacritic compiled a bunch of end-of-year lists for 2021, and The Power of the Dog was on almost 180 of them – and I'm certain there are plenty of other lists that Metacritic omitted. Maybe placing first on a list would be notable, but being 10th on some random website's annual list probably isn't notable enough. Overall, this is my biggest concern with the article, and I honestly don't think I could !vote support with this included. (But if consensus is to promote despite this, I obviously won't stop it.)
  • If it does stay, the following edits need to be made:
    • "Mejores películas 2021 para Javier Quintanar Polanco" – translate to English
    • Same for "21 películas de 2021 que deberías haber visto"
    • "The Arts Fuse" should sort by "Arts", not "The"
• Why are the tables for different awards split up? The general format for similar lists is to create a single large table for all awards.
• In the infobox, wins are typically counted again as nominations (so, for instance, the Artios Awards should list 1 win/1 nom instead of 1 win/0 noms)
• Link John Cassavetes Award in lead
• Sorting for the "Media awards" table is confusing: If "Braddies", "Cal Arts", "Golden Brick", and "Golden Tomato" are going to be the sort terms, they should be listed first.
• The Daily Californian is a student newspaper and probably isn't notable enough to include.
• Why does "Listed" use the runner-up template for the Braddies but the win template for all other cases?
• I agree with PresN's concerns that date formats should be standardize and that the citation from IMDb should be removed (it's not reliable and it's not even needed in this case).
• I also agree with PresN's comments about the citation format; it's needlessly complicated for a list like this where most sources are cited once and page numbers aren't needed.

• The Best-of lists is something I have seen across similar articles, so included; it is also selected, as this film would be on hundreds, too. At the talk page I wrote some notes about entries I removed for not being selective enough. Knowing that such lists exists, list articles would surely be incomplete without inclusion? Very happy to discuss more criteria for cutting it down, though, I tried my best before! Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have an example of such a list being included in a comparable article? I searched every film accolade FL from 12 Years a Slave to Dunkirk and could not find a single example of this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I answered the table splitting somewhere above, but navigability, really. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• But merging the tables allows for more useful sorting. And again, the selection of FLs I searched all used a single table. Obviously there is no single correct format, but the widespread usage of the single-table format would suggest it has some consensus behind it. (If anything, the standard used to be to split tables and has swung towards a single table; see this 2020 discussion for a TV awards list.) Finally, it introduces unneeded subjectivity into an article; for instance, should the National Board of Review be counted as a juried award or a critics' award? Sorting alphabetically in a single list makes it much easier to find a given organization instead of guessing which table it falls under. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the infobox, the template has a preformatted note saying For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination. - so, no? I've never seen wins doubled up as a nom count, and this note clearly says to assume every win was previously nom, so suggests that not doubling up is how it should be done. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not great wording, but I think it means that awards that only announce winners are still credited with a nomination. The three most recent film accolade FLs all use this standard, and from experience, I'm fairly confident most others do as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's already linked in the lead? Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Self-trout Struck accordingly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll organise the sorting. Been busy, also why I haven't addressed PresN's comments yet. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noticed, this was probably because the column was titled as Outlet/Award, so I suppose I put the outlet first then sorted by award. Anyway, amended now. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll remove Daily Cal then (fun note: that particular win set film twitter ablaze, Cal Arts is a university but a very respected one). Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, that paper is from UC Berkeley, not Cal Arts. (Still a respected university, but probably not notable.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'm trying to get to the dates PresN mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, I disregarded PresN's comments about the citation formatting for being unconstructive; how do you think it's overcomplicated? To wit, I have a widescreen monitor and still the auto style of formatting just gives a lot of jumbled columns of refs so clickthroughs are really needed to find what you're looking for, and it doesn't have whitespace around it to be read without, like, concerted effort. Anything that mitigates that is a win, and any organisation is helpful. The section relationship seems logical, what readerly issues do you think the formatting causes? Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, I missed your "listed" question; this was a bit of personal interpretation, as these colors typically are. While in most cases getting on a list is "winning", among a group, the Braddies don't have winners (this is mentioned in a footnote), and so the lists are essentially all runners-up. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @RunningTiger123: Made changes, and otherwise responded to comments. I am honestly intrigued as to what you think makes the citation formatting harder to use when in my experience (and in comments I've received up to now) it's been the opposite - it's been a small mission for me to create the best readerly sources section to direct our readers to go to said sources! Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't speak for RunningTiger123, but I'll chime in with what I was talking about with sources:

• So, usually when you see this kind of split between a short citation linking to a longer full citation, it's because the article is citing a long work, like a book, multiple times for different page numbers. So, having "author, pg. 3", "author, pg. 43", etc. all linking to the single full book citation is helpful, because it means each reference points solely to the page(s) being cited instead of having one book citation like "blah blah pp. 3, 43, 64, etc." where you don't know what was for page 3 and what was for page 43, or the alternative where you have two citations to the same book with the full citation repetitively listed out both times.

Except, that's not what's going on here. Instead, almost every single citation is used only once- twice in a couple cases. So what you end up with is a "Citations" subsection that's basically superfluous. It's a repetition of the citation, just shorter.

• So, if that's not the use case being solved for here, what other purpose does this split cause? Well, it seems like your goal is to be able to put the full citations into sections, which you wouldn't be able to do otherwise. But... does this matter? Does this help anyone? You've split out the BFI and NYT cites from the "features" and the "news" as "literature", but what source would go in what section is entirely opaque to me and doesn't seem obvious or helpful to readers. And never mind that you have a "web" section like almost every other cite isn't also online. Do readers care what the "genre" of source is? Can they follow what your categorization scheme is here without explanation? I get that you feel that 160+ citations without subsections is hard to read through, but I really doubt anyone actually reads through a citation list. They click a superscripted number and jump straight to the citation they care about, because they want to know what is being cited for a specific fact- the surrounding cites don't matter.
• Additionally, and this may be more an editor thing than a reader thing, the way you have this split means you can't go backwards- for instance, when I saw that IMDB source, I wanted to see what it was being referenced for, but unlike a normal citation section, I can't click a little ^ to go to where it's being used. Instead, I had to see what the author's name was, find it in the "Citations" subsection, and then click there. This is annoying but fine when it's a handful of books being referenced multiple times - I can just look - but when every single citation is like that it's a bit of a slog without ctrl-f. --PresN 23:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• All that said, though, these are just my personal opinions here, I'm not speaking as an FLC delegate that it must be changed. The only firm rule on Wikipedia, even at FLC/FAC, is that the citations should be consistently formatted, and beyond that style is up to the editors. So, tl;dr - I don't like it, but it wouldn't stop me from promoting. --PresN 23:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Other comments above. PresN also did a good job describing many of my concerns for the sources. In the end, it just adds a step between hovering over the reference and seeing the full citation for no discernible reason. It's not wrong, it's just more work to create and use it that way. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been a little bit and I haven't seen any updates in the discussion, so I feel I must solidify my !vote as oppose in the list's current state. Kingsif, it's evident that you've put a lot of time and care into this list – it's meticulously researched and referenced. Unfortunately, too much of this list is reliant on end-of-year lists from various critics and websites, and I don't believe that level of detail is notable enough for inclusion (even taking into consideration the lower notability standard for list items at WP:LISTCRIT). In my opinion, this list sets a bad precedent that would open up more popular films to being flooded with hundreds of "best-of" entries that, in the end, are fairly trivial. Also see MOS:FILMCRITICLIST, which seems to advocate for very limited inclusion of such lists if they are even included at all. Obviously, my !vote may be moot when the nomination is closed given the other supports listed here, but I feel clarifying my stance is important. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mentioned above couple people but the referencing format is bad, hard to follow reference to text
• Also oppose use of the top ten lists per RunningTiger123 above
• First reference is an unverified YouTube channel so think fails WP:RSPYT
• few red link or no link awards, e.g. Catalan Association of Film Criticism and Writing (ACCEC), DiscussingFilm Critics Awards, IndieLisboa. Are they notable? Notablity not inherited from foriegn-language wikipedias.
• Notes should be combined in the notes section, some at end of best of lists section

Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: This article has had outstanding comments/opposes for almost a month, and if there's no replies soon I'm going to have to close this nomination. --PresN 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thanks for the reminder. I've been a mix of busy and distracted for a while, this FLC ran longer than I expected and I wasn't able to give it much attention after that, and have honestly been dedicating what time I can on Wikipedia to content creation rather than tweaking what's already a pretty solid list article. I appreciate all of the comments, including those I haven't been able to address. Since I don't think much will change soon for me re. editing, if you want to close it (to be proposed again later?), that's fine with me. Kingsif (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since the nominator is unwilling to continue this nomination and there's an unaddressed oppose, I'm going to have to close it. Feel free to renominate it at some point if anything changes. --PresN 19:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Debartolo2917 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this page has failed a featured list candidate nomination before (in 2011). Since then, it has been substantially improved, now at the standard other lists for first-round draft picks of NFL teams (such as List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks). In addition, this page simplifies the code in other, already featured lists, by utilizing a key with position links and a central 'align="center"' function. Debartolo2917 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments on refs

• A significant number of the refs do not list a publisher
• Ref 25 is tagged as dead
• The two general refs are both listed as having been retrieved in 2009 yet they (seemingly) source data right up to 2021 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Should be up to speed now. It's incredible how so many old links just completely break. Debartolo2917 (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I forgot about this one. The article now seems to be sourced entirely to six "general references" at the bottom. Per WP:IC, inline citations are mandatory for featured content, so everything in the article should have a reference against it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on links

• Links have been updated and I have rescinded a nomination for the Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft pick page. One think to note, I changed the notes next to each draft pick to footnotes. I do not know if that is compatible with in-line citations in the rest of the page (currently sourced as just references without direct placement). Do you know of a way to separate footnotes with references? Debartolo2917 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See List of accolades received by The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021 film) for an example of an article which uses both footnotes and in-line citations..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should all be updated now. Thank you for the example --- it clarifies a lot. Debartolo2917 (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year becomes !scope=col style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year.
• 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. | [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]] becomes !scope=row | [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]].
• Note that these apply to the "Key" table as well, though that table also needs a caption: Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: Just went ahead and updated both the main table and the key tables (which I split) with these formats. The only thing of note was in the position key, I did not find any reason to have row headers. It just doesn't make sense for how the key is constructed. One last thing to have your opinion on: I split the keys in a way that saved space (one underneath the other left a lot of blank, white space which did not look very nice. This construction (with column breaks) looks a little bit better, but the keys being differently shaped looks somewhat awkward. Let me know your opinion on the matter. Thanks! Debartolo2917 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some overlinking in the lead:
  • Pro Football Hall of Fame
  • Super Bowl
• "North division " our article uses "Northern Division" with an en-dash before for the formal title. Not seeing "North division" used in this way.
• You call Joe Stydahar a "tackle" but the key for T is "offensive tackle"?
• "Stydahar went to have..." He went on...
• "have a stellar career" according to who?
• Just a quick aside, really not keen on the referencing in the lead.
• "The Bears have not ... The Bears have only..." repetitive.
• It seems odd that you wait to the second paragraph to tell me about the mechanics of the draft after you've already told me a whole heap about who was drafted and when...!
• "previous Super Bowl; the Super Bowl champion selects 32nd overall, and the Super Bowl loser" repetitive, threepeat of Super Bowl in one sentence.
• In the image captions, you have "first" but "4th" etc. As these are below 10, I'd use words every time.
• The colour scheme in the column headings is distracting and prevents me from knowing the table is sortable.
• No Pick -> No pick
• The "specific" references are really footnotes so should be in a section entitled "footnotes".
• I would much prefer to see each of the entrants cited properly and directly with a specific reference.

That's all I have on a quick blast. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Debartolo2917: Are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 21:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am, just have been busy and not really focused on the page right now. I should be able to get to it within the week. Debartolo2917 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be updated now. Debartolo2917 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot all about this one and just spotted it near the bottom of the FLC page. Quick question - why doesn't the article just use the normal referencing format? Rather than numbered refs as used in 99.999999% of other articles, there's lower case letters, but clicking on them doesn't do anything at all, so you have to scroll manually right to the bottom to find what the ref actually is.......?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after its peer review I think it may comply with all of the FL criteria without major edits and a timeline for the history of the crusader state in Palestine is useful for our readers. Thank your for your review. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice list Mr @Borsoka. Two flyby comments for you to do with as you wish.

• For the quotations and for consistency of citations it would be better if they were also in Harv, perhaps to the translation.
• Kedar is in the sources, but not used.

I am sure that @Dr. Grampinator would be able to review in more detail. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your suggestion. I think the citations are consequent: if the author of the cited work is mentioned, I use Harv, otherwise I do not use it. This is not unusual. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes section is now throwing up the error Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "note" is not used in the content (see the help page). four times. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a call for a review as it has already been peer reviewed and I certainly support FL status as I find the article quite useful in helping to put the subject of the Crusades in context. I looked at the timeline through the establishment of the kingdom and have a couple of comments.

• First, the 1080s entry on the hospital should be closer to 1071 according to Riley-Smith's 2012 Hospitaller work. The reference to John the Almsgiver was made by William of Tyre and is not regarded as necessarily true, despite the reference by Tyerman. I would suggest using Riley-Smith as a citation. Also, I think a reference to the Knights Hospitaller here is appropriate as that is regarded as their formation.
• Also the 1113 reference is confusing. I'm not aware of them every being called the monks of the Saint John Hospital (also done in 1099...why not use the familiar name).
• The same could be said about 1119 where the Templars rather than the Knights Templar are referenced.
• Second, I would put the siege of Jerusalem material before the major heading Establishment (1099–1100), but that's not a big deal. Also, you would think the start of the Crusade of 1101 would warrant a timeline entry.
• As an aside, I'm never fond of overlinking. Is it really necessary to link to "underage" and "sugarcane" in the introduction?

If you're interested in a detailed review, I'll be happy to do it in whatever format you like (edits, list of comments, etc.)Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Thank you for starting your review. I would be grateful if you could continue it because your knowledge on the subject is immense and extraordinary. May I ask you to write your suggestion in a more structured way to facilitate me to comment them? (I edited your above suggestions.) Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by more structured, but I'll try again on the Hospitaller issue. Here are the current entries:

Before 1071. Merchants from Amalfi establish the Benedictine Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey in Jerusalem. Years later, a hospital, dedicated to Saint John, is founded for male pilgrims as the abbey's dependency.

1099. c. July 15. The Saint John Hospital becomes independent of the Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey.

In my view, the establishment of the abbey is not a significant event, but at any rate the correct timeline is 1063 – before 1070 (according to Riley-Smith). The hospital is the significant event but no one knows precisely when it was established. Riley-Smith again says before 1071. Knights Hospitaller is not ever spelled out or linked. The independence of the two again is not significant. Note 1 to the second sentence is debatable and not necessary at this level. John the Almsgiver is not even discussed in the detailed Hospitaller article (nor does John the Almsgiver reference the Hospitallers). Here's how I would replace these, with a single entry:

Before 1071. The Hospital of Saint John founded as a dependency of Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey. This would later form the basis of the Knights Hospitaller.

• 1. The establishment of the abbey indicates the presence of western Christians in Jerusalem. 2. William of Tyre says that the hospital was originally dedicated to John the Almsgiver. 3. I am not sure that the knights are to be introduced here, since the transformation of the order started more than half a century later.

The next mention of the Hospitaller is:

1113. Pope Paschal II confirms the autonomy of the monks of the Jerusalemite Saint John Hospital (or Hospitallers).

This is a awkward way of saying:

1113. 15 February. Paschall II issues the papal bull Pie postulatio voluntatis which recognized the Knights Hospitaller and confirmed its independence from lay authorities.

"Pope" doesn't need to be repeated since "Pope Paschall II" has already been used. I also would recommend adding the death of Urban II and election of Paschall II as significant events.

• Pope Paschal could not recognize the Knights Hospitaller because they were not knights.

I haven't looked at every entry but the timeline seems generally correct and the issues I have are ones of presentation. For example, the Second Crusade is not mentioned in the timeline. Rather it is paraphrased as "new crusade." Baron's Crusade is also not mentioned rather paraphrased. There is one that I couldn't understand:

• Yes, I preferred to paraphrase them. The "Second Crusade" was not the second crusade in fact, so after mentioning a series of crusades, it would be awkward to write of a "second" crusade. The pope did not declare the "Second Crusade" or the "Baron's Crusade", but declared a new crusade.

1100. February 2. Daimber receives the fourth of Jaffa from Godfrey.

I have no idea what this means.

• Modified ([6])

If you think these suggestions are good, I'll continue. But I don't want to build a big list that's going to go nowhere. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank your for your suggestions. I would be grateful if you continued the review. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the level of nitpicking going on has lessened my interest in reviewing this article. Other than a typo (which was just partially fixed), all of my suggested changes were rejected. Of the many statements above, the following stands out:

• "The "Second Crusade" was not the second crusade in fact, so after mentioning a series of crusades, it would be awkward to write of a "second" crusade."

After that, I just gave up. Based on this criteria, what must we do with the following timeline entries, which would now be rendered false:

• 1095. November 27. Urban II proclaims the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont.
• 1187. October 29. Pope Gregory VIII declares the Third Crusade in his bull Audita tremendi.

The view expressed on "Knights Hospitaller" is also curious and contrary to the literature. The three entries on the subject are incorrect and insufficient given their seminal role in the kingdom. Clearly any changes that I might propose will be met with an argument, many of which defy usual conventions.

I will be happy to offer some thoughts to anyone who might be reviewing the timeline, including its omissions and errors, but my proposing changes seems counter-productive at this point. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to the Third Crusade is valid (the First Crusade was actually the first crusade). Thank you for it. The cited sources confirm the sentence about the Hospitallers: none of them refers to "knights" and one of them uses the term "autonomy". Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the Order itself differs on this: After the successful occupation of Jerusalem by the First Crusade, a group of knights discovered the hospice run by Brother Gerard in 1099....The group of knights joined in the hospice’s charitable works, thus strengthening what would evolve into the Sovereign Order of St. John. On February 15, 1113, Pope Pascal II, through his Papal Bull, recognized this Knight – Hospitaller order as a self-governing organization. https://www.sosjinternational.org/history/ Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Source. Reliable sources do not confirm the knights' claim about their origins.

• Malcolm Barber writes of "a company of fratres" receiving privileges from the pope, without mentioning the knights or the order's military nature. He adds that the the 1136 grant of the castle of Bethgibelin to the order "suggests that the order had by this time acquired military capabilities". (Barber, Malcolm (2012). The Crusader States. Yale University Press. pp. 107, 162. ISBN 978-0-300-11312-9.)
• The historian Nikolas Jaspert summarizes in the same way the order's evolution: it developed from a hospital that received privileges from the Papacy in 1113, and they assumed military duties only from around 1135. (Jaspert, Nikolas (2006) [2003]. The Crusades. Translated by Phyllis G. Jestice. Routledge. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-415-35968-9.)
• Alan Forey emphasizes that the Knights Templar (established in 1120) were the first military order. He writes that "The Hospital of St John, founded in Jerusalem before the First Crusade for the care of the poor and sick, was assuming military responsibilities by the mid-1130s, although not all historians have accepted that Hospitaller brethren themselves had taken up arms by then." (Forey, Alan (2002) [1995]. "The Military Orders, 1120-1312". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan (ed.). The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press. pp. 176–210. ISBN 978-0-19-280312-2.)
• Jonathan Riley-Smith (himself a Hospitaller) is the only historian who says that the order may have had some military function as early as 1126. He mentions that the Hospitallers' Rule "desribes an Order that appears - as it indeed did to the outside world - to be engaged solely in acts of mercy and in raising the cash needed for its mission. There is no reference to brothers-in-arms or to warfare..." (Riley-Smith, Jonathan (2012). The Knights Hospitaller in the Levant, c.1070-1309. Palgrave. pp. 26–29. ISBN 978-1-349-33162-8..

Perhaps we should accept the reliable sources' approach when presenting the development of the order from a nursing confraternity (established before 1070) to a military order (around 1135). Borsoka (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By continuing this line of logic, the Fourth Crusade, Fifth Crusade, etc., must be similarly caveated. And the statement about the First Crusade can also be regarded as incorrect. And I stand by my statement that each of the three references to the "Saint John Hospital" are incorrect, the 1113 entry grievously so. By the way, the term "Saint John Hospital" only appears here, no where else on Wikipedia or otherwise. The discussion above is interesting, but not reflected in the timeline. The Hospitaller certainly had a military arm before 1121 and likely as early as 1099 as stated above. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are right when referring to the Fourth Crusade and the Fifth Crusade. 2. Please read my quotes from relevant reliable literature. They all contradict to your statement about the Hospitallers' military arm. On the other hand, they confirm the statements in the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are interesting quotes but particularly irrelevant to the discussion about the article since the Knights Hospitaller are not referenced there. As I have said several times, the three references to "Saint John Hospital" are incorrect and seem to be getting worse with each edit. Other areas of the timeline that are incomplete, incorrect or misrepresented are (1) kings and queens of Jerusalem; (2) relevant popes and papal bulls; (3) Crusades and their battles; and (4) Military orders. There is a lot of good work in the timeline but it needs a careful scrub. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are not only interesting quotes, but also relevant, because they prove that we cannot speak about "Knights" Hospitaller before the mid-1130s. The three sentences are verified by reliable sources and you have not cited a single source proving that they represent PoV. I am sure the timeline is incomplete, so I would be grateful if you could improve it, but please remember this is a timeline of the history of the kingdom, not of the crusades or the papacy. I changed the expression "Saint John Hospital" to "Hospital of Saint John" in accordance with the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prawer wrote on the Hospitillers in The Crusaders' Kingdom (1991, p253), and makes the important point: Though charity was written large in the code of Christian ethics and social circumstances made it incumbent on the rich and mighty, these biblical sentiments were never embodied in an aristocratic instituition. Charity by the mighty meant a condescending distribution of alms. A quite different view was held by the small group of knights which gathered around the saintly Gerard almost immediately after the crusader conquest of Jerusalem. They proclaimed charity as their primary task and obligation. Thus knighthood entered a hitherto almost exclusively monastic and ecclesiastical sphere. My bolds. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a red herring. Nobody was talking about when the Knights Hospitaller were militarized. The standard convention is to refer to them as such after the First Crusade because their ranks did include knights. Even later, they included both knights and non-knights. Wikipedia recognizes it and redirects Order of St. John to Knights Hospitaller. Riley-Smith wrote a book on it: The Knights Hospitaller in the Levant, c.1070-1309. Enough. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prawer's statement contradicts all sources cited above. Please read Riley-Smith's work before referring to it. Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on the article do not improve it, so I withdraw this nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: I am seeking the coordinators' assistance to withdraw my nomination. Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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