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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daytona 500 is one of the crown in the jewels of NASCAR. It has been held every year since 1959 and is known as The Great American Race. 43 drivers have won this prestigious race, including some of the all time greats in Richard Petty, Bobby Allison, Dale Earnhardt, Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, David Pearson and Cale Yarborough. All comments are welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The winner was the first race was" - typo in there
• "The 1973 oil crisis shortened by the event" - and here
• That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Both issues have been addressed EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a source review, and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to say on this one, EnthusiastWorld37. Overall, great work! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Have made changes based on the points below. Let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture could be wikilinked
• What makes ConceptCarz a reliable source? It's been around for a long time but I couldn't see much about its editorial oversight on the site.
• Isn't it "Guinness World Records" rather than "Guinness World Book of Records"?
• Encyclopædia Britannica and Guinness have no consensus at WP:RSP. The EB entry has been written by staff and the GWR info is straightforward, so I think their use here is fine.
• Is the Tucker and Tiller ref needed at the heding of the Winners of the Daytona 500 table? It only covers up to 1994.
• Other sources all look fine for the info cited.
• I didn't see any issues with citation formatting.

• Pass for source review. All looks good now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Shouldn't the wikilink at "American stock car race" exclude the "American" (i.e. be "American stock car race")?
• Looking at the source, isn't "the race has been extended through the use of overtime rules on several occasions" a bit of an understatement?
• "a large sum of money" - how about specifying the most recent amount available, rather than using this imprecise statment?

• Support: Meets the criteria in my opinion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the header of the first table, "Refs." is the abbreviation of "References".
• Richard Petty's image's caption should end with a full stop, given that it is a complete sentence.
• In the header of the "By team" table, and for the sake of consistency, it should read as "Team" instead of Teams.

That's what I saw, EnthusiastWorld37. Nice work. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alavense: Have addressed your concerns EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is what I meant, given that in the other tables it's Driver and Make. Please undo it if you don't like it. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the list for 1969 having just been promoted and the list for 1970 having a few supports, here is the list for 1971. Lots more Carpenters and a first chart-topper for a singer who was born in England and raised in Australia but would be one of the U.S.'s favourite singers of the 1970s..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The chart, which in 1971 was entitled Easy Listening, has undergone various name changes and since 1996 has been published under the title Adult Contemporary." - I generally recommend commas before and after the "since 1996" but you may want to do the other workaround you use to fix the issue instead.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "topped Billboard's pop singles chart" - Were non-singles still eligible to chart back then like they are now? If so, "songs" might be a better term than "singles" given the context
  • No, songs which were not available to purchase as a single were not eligible for the Hot 100 until December 1998 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two instances of "followed into the top spot" so one could be something like "succeeded at the summit" or some other combination of words
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "[7][8][9][10]" - Four refs in a row is usually considered WP:OVERKILL, it might help to move one earlier in the sentence or eliminate it
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff and pictures, as always expected and delivered by you.--NØ 13:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: - thank you for your kind words, all the above addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, did the edit not save? Because I am not seeing the changes in the current revision...--NØ 16:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Like a dumb-ass I had it open in another tab but hadn't hit "save changes" LOL. Please check now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much, lol. Support and I can also pass the source review as I am familiar with the sourcing on these types of lists now. Tapestry should be italicized on ref 4, though. Cheers.--NØ 16:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

I've got nothing, you stumped me! Great stuff Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the list a couple of times and I didn't find anything to point out. If anything, I'd try to find another verb to avoid using "replace" twice in replacing "It's Impossible" by Perry Como. The song held the top spot for a single week before being replaced. In any case, I'm happy to support. Great work as always, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: - thanks for your review, I made a slight change to avoid that repetition, which I hadn't noticed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This year's ranking list continued to use the complicated system from the preceding years, and Steve Davis was once again far ahead of the rest. Penalties relating to violence and drugs affected the former world champions Alex Higgins and Cliff Thorburn respectively. The Smith book, a key resource for this article, is available to consult at Internet Archive, but I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from any of the sources to reviewers. As ever, all improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Seasons are referred to inconsistently throughout. I can see both "The list for the 1986–87 snooker season was the first" and "It was first time since the rankings were instituted in 1976/1977"
• "as part of a six month ban imposed by the WPBSA" => "as part of a six-month ban imposed by the WPBSA"
• "In May 1988, Cliff Thorburn had two ranking points" - no need to relink and restate his full name as he was just mentioned in the last paragraph
• "Stephen Hendry won the other two" => "Hendry won the other two"
• "If there wasstill a tie" (sic) appears repeatedly in the criteria listing
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article per the points above. Let me know "if there isstill" anything to address. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All images properly sourced & licensed (AGF on self-published works)
• All images properly captioned (perhaps link Stephen Hendry again in the image caption?)
• All images have alt text
• All images relevant to the text

Support on images, nice work! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Staraction. I've linked Hendry, as suggested. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please state who Gavin Lightman was
• "In April 1988," - the year should be 1987 as per The Times source
• "had earlier been found guilty in court of headbutting the tournament director at the 1987 UK Championship," - I think that was the 1986 UK Championship not the 1987 UK Championship as per the source
• "Alain Robidoux received two walkovers at the 1988 World Snooker championship" - championship should start with a capital letter in this case
• "The tournaments contributing to the 1988–89 rankings were the ranking tournaments held across two seasons" - repetition of tournaments
• "the player who earned more "Merit" points 'was the most recent season was given the higher ranking." - in the most recent season
• "the player who earned more "Merit" points was the most preceding season was given the higher ranking" - in the most preceding season
• "the player with the better performance in the previous ranking tournament was given the higher ranking, going back through ranking tournaments until the positions could be established" - same issue as the fifth point

That's all I have EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. Hopefully I've addressed those points. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Note that I have a made a minor change to the list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Merit" points" and "A" points". Besides, why use a capital m for Merit?
• In the "Points tariff and basis of ranking" section, what's the reason for having "the" before some of the tournaments but not for others?
• In the first table, there's Losing semi-finalist but also Losing Quarter-finalist. I would make it lower case in both cases. Same for Last 16 Loser and Last 32 Loser.

That's what I saw, BennyOnTheLoose. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Alavense. Hopefully I've addressed those points. Let me know if anyhting else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why there are three pairs of quotations marks both in "merit" points" and "A" points", BennyOnTheLoose. Is it just a typo? Alavense (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of... I had missed it. Hopefully now OK. thanks, Alavense. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine now. Good work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look fine, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2024 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 ceremonies were written. Please note that this list has been greatly rewritten since the first unsuccessful nomination to format it similar to the other Oscar ceremony pages that were promoted to featured list status. Birdienest81talk 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Raj and Hamish have been incredible Oscars collaborators" - Hamish hasn't been mentioned in the body so clarify here who he is
• "Comedian and journalist Amelia Dimoldenberg served as a social media and red carpet correspondent where she interviewed nominees at events including the Oscars nominees lunch and hosted" - "where" doesn't really work after the bit before so I suggest "Comedian and journalist Amelia Dimoldenberg served as a social media and red carpet correspondent, interviewing nominees at events including the Oscars nominees lunch and hosting"
• "In September 2020, the Academy announced that starting with the 96th awards, all films" => "In September 2020, the Academy announced that, starting with the 96th awards, all films"
• "which involves creative heads in an films production" => "which involves creative heads in a film's production"
• "In addition, Academy FAQs stated that British films that have complied with the British Film Institute's inclusion and diversity standards will also be deemed" => "In addition, Academy FAQs stated that British films that have complied with the British Film Institute's inclusion and diversity standards would also be deemed"
• "Furthermore with its win for Best Picture, Oppenheimer became" => "Furthermore, with its win for Best Picture, Oppenheimer became"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Done -- I have read your comments and have made the suggested changes as noted in your feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 08:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 3 – Needs a date
• Ref 31 – Add Associated Press as the agency

That's all I've got, good stuff. Ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Done -- I've made the corrections based on your comments.

--Birdienest81talk 08:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I really struggled to critique anything, this is very well sourced. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Ref. 23 have a url or something that can be linked?

• Unfortunately, there is no URL or webpage that links to the description/rationale as to why said person is receiving the award. The description is currently based on the Oscars official ceremony program pamphlet of which copies were once sold at the Academy Museum Store's website (see here) but have been since sold out.

• Add an archive link for Ref. 22?

• Done: Added archive link

• Italicise "In Memoriam" (to this ==> In Memoriam) in the section heading and the first sentence ("The "In Memoriam" tribute, which featured....")? I'm not familiar with these lists, but that's how I've seen it displayed in the other FLs you've listed.

• Hmmm, I'm not very sure about this. According to Joeyconnick, non-English language words in this context should have quotation marks rather than be italicized. I don't remember the exact policy based on the Manual of Style, but he does.
• "In memoriam" is Anglicized (as in, it's not considered a foreign phrase as it appears in English-language dictionaries as a loanword or I guess loanphrase in this case) per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. So it's not italicized as a foreign phrase. As a minor work (i.e. part of/a segment of a TV show/special/program), it is rendered in quotations per MOS:MINORWORK. Hope that helps. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Could Ref. 25 be moved into Ref. 24?

• Done

• In response, Kapoor and Mullan released a statement saying, "As a Canadian boy of South Asian descent and a girl from London who grew up watching the Oscars, dreaming of being part of it, this is a 'pinch me' moment!” said Kapoor and Mullan. “This has been an exceptional year for the movies, and it's an absolute privilege to be leading the team celebrating the global film industry and the astounding talents that bring these cinematic stories to life. We're dedicated to making it a remarkable celebration for all." ==> You might need to remove 'said Kapoor and Mullan'.

• Done: Removed phrase since it is implied Kapoor and Mullan said the quote at the beginning, and therefore, it is redundant to mention them again.

Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgubaldo: I've read your comments and have made to respective corrections to them or have responded to them.

--Birdienest81talk 20:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for Joeyconnick's response on the quotation marks vs italics issue, and then I can support. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but perhaps go back through the various ceremony pages and retroactively fix the quotations/italics issue. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got to walk some of this trail and get some photos, it was awesome as a Packers fan and history buff. Hope you enjoy! As always, happy to address any concerns or issues promtly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Packers are linked in both of the first two sentences - no need for the second
  • The first link is to History of the Green Bay Packers and the second link is to Green Bay Packers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Nowhere does the lead state who/what the Green Bay Packers are i.e. an American football team
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "All of the 25 sites have bronze commemorative plaques that connect the history of the site" - not sure what you mean by "connect the history of the site". Do you mean something like "relate to the history of the site".....?
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "the plaque for Lombardi's home and the plaque for Lambeau's gravesite is located" - two plaques are mentioned so the verb should be plural
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In the table, some of the entries in the "site" column are randomly centre-aligned
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisTheDude, was there anything else I can address? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not based on the above, but I thought I'd just hang fire and see how the discussion below about including rationales (for want of a better term) went..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table needs to tell me why these sites are relevant. What is special about this church? What happened at the ballroom? Etc. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reywas92, the sources don't provide this information. The only place I could get this information is my physically visiting each plaque or by purchasing Christl's book, which unfortunately isn't available on Amazon.com. You could maybe make the case that I could just do some standalone research and infer why each one is significant to the Packers, but imho that pushes OR a bit too much (I would be inferring why each site was placed on the trail). I am just providing what is currently available via sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[6] and [7] have images of the plaques. Citing these or the plaques directly would not be OR. Reywas92^Talk 16:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with the size of the table. Would a new section of text explaining the sites be agreeable to you? Maybe expand the last paragraph of the lead? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the sites should have a blurb even if only a few words, so that's better in the table than a paragraph. It's not that big a table – or perhaps the coordinates could be moved under the addresses. Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this in the next few days Reywas92. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, I have completed the above. Please let me know if you have any other comments or concerns. Appreciate the recommendation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for adding the descriptions. I made a couple small edits. The plaque location and significance columns don't need to be sortable. I'd also suggest either merging the plaque location into the address column or the coordinates into either of those, but it's not a must-do. Otherwise support. Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reywas92, thank you for your support. I made the columns unsortable. I'll keep looking at the possibility of merging columns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|August 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is the first item in the list not numbered? It also does not have a row scope
  • It is not numbered in the source. The Plaza is not a heritage site, rather it is the commemorative "summary" of the Trail.
• Quite a few sites are not actually proper names and should not be capitalized in the "site" column, please work to convert some of these to sentence case. "Vince Lombardi's Home" for example should be lowercase.
  • I am matching the source here. Seeing as they are formal titles of heritage sites along the trail, I am not sure what takes precedence. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Current item #18, Packers Practice Fields doesn't have an address, just a street, in the table, but the source shows an address
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Same as the above, but for item #21 (Indian and Acme Packing Plants)
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Using your regular reference formatting, shouldn't "GoPressTimes.com", a newspaper, be formatted as "The Press Times" instead? I recognize they don't have an article, at least that I could find, but this would match your typical formatting
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responded above Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007:

• Perhaps we can consider a footnote or something for the number column? Or rename it to site number or something similar?
• I am matching the source here. Seeing as they are formal titles of heritage sites along the trail, I am not sure what takes precedence. – My understanding, and I'd love to be corrected if I am wrong, is that we would try to lowercase where appropriate when promoting to FA or FL.

I think those are the last two things to iron out :) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Site #" and lower cased the ones that were more descriptive titles. Let me know if that works Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, I just wanted to let you know that I have added a few sources since you completed the source review. Not sure if you want to reconfirm the source review or not. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me still, no issues. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

• "relating to the history of the Green Bay Packers, an American football in the National Football League (NFL)". Is this meant to say an American football team
• There is a stray curly bracket in the table "17}"

-- EN-Jungwon 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • EN-Jungwon, fixed both. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support -- EN-Jungwon 00:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list enough sources and enough prose to earn a spot as a Featured List. Feel free to review. XR228 (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the lead image should be right at the top of the lead. This seems to me to be the norm.
• Are there appropriate links for play-by-play announcer and color analyst?
• "Olczyk would maintain his job at TNT as the lead color commentator and would call the Kraken's games as his schedule allowed" => "Olczyk maintain his job at TNT as the lead color commentator and called the Kraken's games as his schedule allowed"
• "did the same for Olczyk and Piper Shaw for the 2022–23 season onward" - who's Piper Shaw? This is the first mention of them.....
• Root Sports Northwest should be linked on first use in the body
• That's it for me I think. The US model of sports broadcasting is rather alien to me over here in the UK but nonetheless I found this a clear and easy read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Columns have no scopes
• What is "most games" supposed to mean? This needs to be defined in some capacity
• What are the tables sourced to? It's not clear to me.
• Add Wikilinks to sources in the publisher/website/work fields for consistency (several include links, while others do not)
• Image of Alison Lukan should probably be cropped since it looks like the focus is on the hockey player
• Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|July 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description
• Consider adding archive links the archive bot is back up
• KPUG has apparently been an affiliate since 2022, according to the tweet used as a source. Can we do any better than this tweet? Given how long it's been, I would hope/expect that it's also sourced elsewhere.
• Based on the source for the 2023–24 season, would this then mean that KPUG's FM station is no longer an affiliate? Or is this specifically citing stations which are part of the iheart radio network?
• Throughout their history, Kraken games have been televised on Root Sports Northwest and radio broadcast primarily on KJR-FM. – This sentence is rather clunky. I'm sure they've been televised plenty of places, but was the intent to say they're primarily televised on Root Sports as well? Or just "radio broadcast primarily" on KJR-FM?
• Image alt texts could be improved. "Man holding microphone" would be better as "John Forslund holding a microphone". These are meant to be a description of the image, we don't need to go into serious detail, but it's better that we note who's in the image when we can for someone who's visually impaired.
• Additionally, if you don't want to crop the image, "Woman wearing headphones" is not a good alt description for File:Los Angeles Kings at Seattle Kraken - November 19, 2022 - Brandon Tanev and Allison Lukan (52519198214).jpg.
• Add author to ref 15

Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I have made the changes. For the issues with the section about radio affiliates, I decided to completely redo it according to the source from iHeartRadio. (see here) XR228 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh XR228 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the changes that have been made. Althought I would encourage the removal of the width=100% attribute, as I think it makes the table wider than it needs to be. That's a personal preference and nothing that would hold up this nomination.

Refs 12, 13, and 17 still need to be specified as needing a subscription. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I have made the changes. Personally, I think having the tables' with be 100% looks better aesthetically. Just my opinion. XR228 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find the extremely wide "play-by-play" column to be off putting and to look like the table is improperly formatted, but it's not a deal breaker. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: the scope=col tags make the header cells bolded, so you don't need to bold them again (right now the column headers are double-bold). --PresN 15:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Fixed. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ill do this =D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources seem reliable though boarderline on HockeyDB

• Any reasons why Davy Jones locker room is listed as being owned by Vox? None of the other sources list their owners.
• All references uses an inconsistent dating style per MOS:DATEUNIFY
• Ref 1 is titled "Seattle Kraken hockey team statistics and history at HockeyDB.com" when it should be titled "Seattle Kraken hockey team statistics and history" using the via parameter to include HockeyDB
• Archive refs 21 and 24
• Refs 5, 13 are written by Geoff Baker
• Refs 10 and 21, not mandatory but consider using Template:Cite press release

That's all I found. Ping me when done! Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an unusually specific type of episode list. Most episode lists cover all episodes of a programme, or are split by year/season. However, this specific list covers a very narrowly specific group of episodes and I thought it would make an interesting featured list. I've spent a bit of time improving sources, and expanding the prose, and feel that it would make a great addition to Wikipedia's featured content. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As the lead mentions "1963-1989" and "since 2005" I think you should clarify that the show was off the air for the years in between
• Also, I would put the 1963-1989 bit before the since 2005 bit
• "held a record for the highest watched BBC drama from its broadcast until 2021" - this is a misrepresentation of the source. The source says the Line of Duty episode was the highest-viewed drama episode since the Dr Who episode, but it doesn't state that prior to this the Dr Who episode was the most viewed of all time. Indeed, at the point of its broadcast Voyage wasn't even the most-viewed Dr Who episode of all time (see City of Death#Broadcast and reception), let alone the most-viewed episode of any BBC drama ever. This applies to both the lead and body.
• "During the third season, the twelve-part serial The Daleks' Master Plan was broadcast weekly over the 1965–1966 Christmas period" - this makes it sound like all 12 episodes were broadcast over Christamas, which obviously isn't the case
• "When Doctor Who was revived in 2005 with Russell T Davies acting as showrunner the first proper" => "When Doctor Who was revived in 2005, with Russell T Davies acting as showrunner, the first proper"
• "A special episode aired on New Year's day in 2010" - capital D on Day
• "Moffat also returned to pen the 2024 special, "Joy to the World" being the first time the incumbent showrunner did not write the holiday special" => "Moffat also returned to pen the 2024 special, "Joy to the World", marking the first time that the incumbent showrunner did not write the holiday special"
• Rose is not linked or given a surname in the first episode description, even though other characters are
• Tenth Doctor is linked multiple times but not on first usage
• Same goes for the TARDIS
• "warns Wilfred to arm himself to before departing" => "warns Wilfred to arm himself before departing"
• "The Doctor and Wilfred become fugitives from the Masters" - plural?
• "He also crates" => "He also creates"
• "realises that Clara is the same person as Oswin Oswald" - could do with explaining who she was
• "in exchange the return of the Captain" => "in exchange for the return of the Captain"
• Link Jack Harkness
• "They rejoin with her companions." => "They rejoin her companions."
• "Ruby witnesses goblins kidnap the baby" => "Ruby witnesses goblins kidnapping the baby"
• "when it was beat by the sixth series finale of Line of Duty" => "when it was beaten by the sixth series finale of Line of Duty"
• "while others have named the best to be "The Runaway Bride",[27][28] "Last Christmas",[29][30] and "The Husbands of River Song"." => "while others have named the best to be "The Runaway Bride",[27][28] "Last Christmas",[29][30] or "The Husbands of River Song"." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks once again for the review! I believe I've addressed everything. The episode summaries are transcluded from their respective series articles, which is why somethings are/aren't linked where they typically are. For that reason, I added a note for the Clara Oswin Oswald explanation, which should help satisfy that comment since it didn't need the full explanation there (the summary for Asylum of the Daleks summary is just a few episodes above on Doctor Who series 7).

I had been working on a Line of Duty article before I wrote this, hence why the wrong information was added. I was attempting to briefly explain it, without going into as much detail as I did on Line of Duty series 6. Just for reference, The original source I had in this article actually addressed LoD 6.6, not 6.7, and from what it reads, that episode only had "average 11 million" (or 10.9 million) viewers and actually didn't exceed VotD's 11.7. It's just saying that nothing had reached that high since 2008's special. And this source specifically states that LoD 6.7 was "the most watched episode of any drama since modern records began in 2002, not including soaps", which (when simplifying) is where the accidental misrepresentation likely came in. I ultimately removed it here, just because going into that much detail seemed out of scope. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

1. Can you improve the alt text for the image beyond "DVD cover art"? At least say what it's the DVD cover art of.
2. "story-arc" should be "story arc"
3. Ref 1 – Website is not "BBC Doctor Who website", recommend changing the source of this to BBC One
4. Ref 13 – Not seeing how the source is BBC Three here. Probably better to use BBC iPlayer.
5. Ref 21 – Uses "Cultbox.co.uk" whereas refs 12 and 24 just use "CultBox"
6. Ref 21 – No author listed, one mentioned at source
7. Ref 25 – Change The Associated Press to just Associated Press
8. Ref 27 – Item 4 in there should be changed from Screenrant to Screen Rant
9. Ref 29 – Change "The Pop Verse" to PopVerse. This also lists a different publish date than what's used in the article
10. Why should we treat "The Doctor Who Companion" as a reliable source? Seems to be a WordPress blog.
11. Why should we treat "Doctor Who News" as a reliable source? It seems all of the ratings rely on this, whereas there's likely better sources that could be used.
12. Why should we treat "Nerdgazm" as a reliable source? I see they have editors listed, but I'm not exactly sold on them
13. Archives should be added to a number of these links where possibly

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I believe I've addressed most everything.

Ref 13 specifically uses {{Cite episode}} which asks for the network the episode first aired on. For Doctor Who: Unleashed that's both BBC Three and iPlayer so I added iPlayer but left Three as well.

Perhaps @Alex 21: can help me out really quick for the reliability of Doctor Who News? I recall there being a semi-recent discussion on it, but I can't seem to locate it. Overnight ratings seem to be covered pretty widely, but from a quick search on the three most recent Christmas specials, I didn't' seem to find any better sources. I can do a deeper dive if need-be, Broadcast usually covers them, but it would take a minute to dig around there, so I'll wait and see if Alex has something to say first. I do know that Doctor Who News has passed through a significant number of GA's, including the series and some episode articles, all by separate independent reviewers. It's also been used in other featured content as well (here, here, here, and here).

I replaced The Doctor Who Companion with DWN also pending Alex's response, but will look for something else if need be. Nerdgazm was removed as the sentence that supported had more that reference. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the reply. I looked at the other featured content that you mentioned and all of it was promoted 15+ years ago. Given how our standards have drastically changed since those times, I don't feel comfortable using those as a point in favour of accepting DWN. It looks like that's the only thing we have left to address, so I'll wait for Alex's response or for a link to a relevant discussion (please ping when replying). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Doctor Who News has been phased out in this article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good stuff! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• was release
• Doctor Who, along with other television series in the Whoniverse, have occasionally broadcast - It should be "has".
• I think the paragraph which explains what the show is about should be placed further above, immediately after the introductory one.
• Richard Riley, a Biostatistics professor at the University of Birmingham conducted - A comma is missing.
• the first episode of another spin-off, The Sarah Jane Adventures was broadcast - A comma is missing.
• encounters a man calling himself "the Doctor" and his companion Rosita Farisi, attempting to capture a Cybershade - I don't think there's need for that comma.
• the miserly Kazran Sardick who refuses - A comma is missing.
• but, the - No need for that comma.
• that escapes - "which".
• The Doctor has been imprisoned for a number of decades is set free by Jack Harkness - That sentence doesn't quite make sense.
• The Doctor, Yaz and Dan - The Oxford comma has been used throughout, so it would be better to make it consistent and use it here as well.

That's what I saw, TheDoctorWho. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: I believe that I have addressed everything. Thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits, TheDoctorWho, and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 21:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been working on this list for some time now and have done waves of overhauls to try to get it at the FL level. Given the recent promotion of my FLN for Cities in Luhansk Oblast and my completion of everything I can do from my end for my FLN for Cities in Donetsk Oblast, I thought I'd move ahead and get this nomination started. It's not perfectly ready and I plan on editing it more during the nomination period but considering the lengthy timeframe of the FL process and the benefits of getting feedback while editing, thought it'd be better to get it started now and continue to work on it simultaneously with the nom. Unlike the other two FL noms for Donetsk and Luhansk, this list is unique in that it represents a geographic area with two distinct legal entities: the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and city with special status Sevastopol. Given this and its occupation by Russia since 2014, this list has a larger scope and will naturally be more complex/detailed and longer than the other lists. Imo the legal particulars of Sevastopol can get really confusing so feel free to post questions on this nom or reach out if it helps! Thanks in advance y'all for the suggestions and excited to get this nom started! :) Dan the Animator 21:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really interesting! I do not speak Russian or Ukrainian, so I cannot speak for the sources, but

• The lede is well-written. Don't really have anything to add here.

Thanks! :)

• Table formatting seems good to me — great job incorporating a bunch of different complicated info with the dual administrative schemes.

Thanks again!!!

• My only real qualm is that we don't have any information on Balaklava; would there be a way to incorporate that into the list while marking it's only recognized as a city by Russia? I feel it's worth including as a de facto city on the peninsula.

I considered this and tried it out but I don't think it's practical. Both the 2001 Ukrainian and 2014 Russian censuses include Balaklava's stats as part of Sevastapol's population numbers (as stated in the efn note next to Sevastapol's numbers), so to have Balaklava included separately would suggest that its counted separately from Sevastapol, which isn't the case. There are also no separate population statistics of Balaklava itself from 2001 as far as I can tell and its unclear what the only 2014 number I found for Balaklava is actually for (my understanding is that it actually represents the population of Balaklava city council (which includes multiple nearby villages/settlements that aren't actually part of Balaklava itself) so it's not ideal to have that number here either). Given this, the only information that would be included in the table for Balaklava would be its alternate names (which are simply all variations of Balaklava) and its de facto/de jure subdivisions, which doesn't really add anything since it's already explained in the lead that Russia and Ukraine both consider Balaklava as part of Sevastapol. Hopefully my explanation makes sense but feel free to let me know if you still think it should be added to the table. I don't feel particularly strongly about it but I also don't see any compelling reason for including it either.

That's all from me for now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense with Balakalva; I feel free it's fine to leave it out of the table. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The territory of Crimea, including Sevastopol, has been" - this reads a bit weirdly, because Sevastopol hasn't been introduced, so it's unclear why it gets singled out from the rest of the region here. It also isn't linked until the second usage.

Fixed: removed "including Sevastapol" so it flows better

• The lead uses both "recognized" (US spelling) and "recognised" (Commonwealth spelling) and there's a similar inconsistency with other words. Pick one variety of English and use it consistently.

Fixed: standardized to the American spelling and added the Eng-var template too

• Sevastopol is overlinked in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

• Thanks Generalissima and ChrisTheDude for the reviews and apologies for the very belated reply! Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article and also: based on a suggestion in the recently closed FLN for List of cities in Donetsk Oblast, I decided to go ahead and switch out the infoboxes on all these oblasts lists with coordinate maps with links & locations for each city. For the other articles I feel it adds tremendously but given the .png map image for Crimea is already so detailed and in many ways better than the coord map, let me know which option this list should use (the coord map, the infobox with image, or just the image). I also kept the infobox commented out so feel free to preview it in visual editor too if it helps. Thanks again in advance for all the help! :) Dan the Animator 06:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If I didn't misunderstand the sentence, while since its annexation, the region has been de facto governed by Russia is missing a comma before "since".
• Can anything be done to avoid the triple repetition of the with a recorded population of X people formula?
• 11 city municipalities and 14 raions and merging them into ten reformed raions - MOS:NUMNOTES states that "comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures", so make it "10" for the sake of consistency.
• As previously noted in another similar nomination, a "the" should be added before the name of all three Wikipedias in the notes.
• Is there a particular reason why the images have been moved to another section? I think it would make more sense to have them before the table, as is the case in similar lists.

That's all I saw, Dantheanimator. Thanks in advance and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alavense for the review! :) Most of the parts should be fixed now and also reworded the census part so hopefully its better (will rewrite it more though if it helps). About the image section, I wasn't too sure what you had in mind. When I started work on this article, the images were included within the table rows for each city. Due to the larger size and greater complexity of this table compared to the tables in the other oblast cities lists, I decided earlier on to move the photos to a separate section and leave them there so they don't clutter the table. If I'm understanding right, the suggestion is to move the gallery section in between the Administrative divisions and List of cities sections, similar to how List of cities in New Brunswick has the photos above the table? I don't feel too strongly about it but I do think its current location is fine and its better to try to keep the table closer to the lead since its the main focus of the article.

Otherwise, what's your thoughts on how the images should be displayed/formatted? The table as-is already just barely fits on my laptop's full desktop screen and I don't think it would make sense to add additional columns to the table since it'll just cause it to spill out of the screen. I'm also open to removing the section entirely though I think it does add some value (and its also well-sourced). Let me know what you think. Dan the Animator 15:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the edits. In some similar lists (see this one, for instance), the images are included just before the table. But I don't really have a problem with how the images are laid out here, I was just curious about it. Nice work on the list, as always. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah got it. If it weren't for the additional Administrative divisions section, I'd have it laid out the same but that section really pushes the list content lower in the page than ideal. Many thanks again for the comments! :) Dan the Animator 19:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 14:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parasite was released in 2019 and made history by becoming the first non English-language film to win Best Picture in 2019. The style is the same as other existing FLs of this kind. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing. Awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you as always for the reviews. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (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.
• For header cells (like "AACTA International Awards") which span multiple rows, the scope should be "rowgroup" and not "row".
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824, done. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Found a few more issues:

  • Most of the dates are in dmy format, but i noticed "March 14, 2020" in one of the notes.
  • There is a CS1 - multiple authors error in one of the refs.
  • The director's image in the infobox is missing alt text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824; done the first and last point. Could you point out which ref the error is cropping up on? I can't seem to find it for some reason. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The sports.donga.com one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've changed it, and hopefully that should fix it. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question—is it normal practice for both the infobox and list to overlap this much? I'm a newbie to these kinds of lists. It feels a little redundant; the win/count info per award I feel could just be merged into the table. The totals I feel maybe could be left in the infobox. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Also the show/hide button in the infobox doesn't seem to be working for me; I tried a Chromium and Safari browser on Mac and neither worked. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's really odd, I'm not having this issue on either browser. Also, to me the infobox appears collapsed by default, so that only the totals show, not each individual nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, to verify we're talking about the same things, I'm talking about the [show] button next to the Accolades header in the infobox. Also, I know each row in the infobox has only the totals, I'm saying listing the totals for each individual award circuit (I.e. AACTA Awards, AACTA International Awards, ARP Movies... etc) feels a bit redundant with the list in the body. I'm asking what you think about, if possible, only showing the totals bit at the bottom of the infobox: Wins 219 and Nominations 353. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the [show/hide] button works fine for me; the issue has been brought up on the template's talk page. I think it's fine to show the individual totals, particularly as the infobox is (at least supposed to be) collapsed by default.

  Sgubaldo (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah! Ok, that all makes sense. Looks good to me then! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the Guinness World Records distinction of being the most awarded foreign-language film at the Oscars alongside Fanny and Alexander and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, the 2022 version of All Quiet on the Western Front has also now tied the record according to this article from Slash Film. I know Guinness World Records noted the record back in 2020, but I'm wondering if it should be denoted that All Quiet on the Western Front has matched that record. I can see arguments in favor and not in favor, but I just want to get your take on it.
• Also, all movie titles in the references should be italicized as well per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

That's all I have for now.

--Birdienest81talk 08:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81, added information about All Quiet on the Western Front (good catch), and fixed the MOS:CONFORMTITLE issue. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Birdienest81, just following up to see if all of your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been, and now I can lend my support. Birdienest81talk 22:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another snooker list. For once, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association decided not to mess about with the system from the previous year, obviously finding it was already adequately complicated for their tastes. A couple of players got lost in a later version; from sources I'm able to account for one of them. Once again, Steve Davis was the clear leader at the top. Number one for six seasons when the rankings started, Ray Reardon (R.I.P.) was out of the top 16 for the first time. As ever, I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "White, who won two ranking titles in the 1986–87 season had been" => "White, who won two ranking titles in the 1986–87 season, had been"
• "of which those ranked 121 or lower became "(NT)" denotes a "non-tournament" players, meaning....." - this is a bit mangled. I think what you mean is "of which those ranked 121 or lower became "non-tournament" (NT) players, meaning....."
• "1986 & 1987 world championships" => "1986 and 1987 world championships"
• The note needs a full stop at the end -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thank, ChrisTheDude. I've made those amendments. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1986–87 snooker season is linked twice in consecutive paragraphs.
• "Discussing the rankings for 1987–88, the snooker journalist Terry Smith asserted that "Every player in the lower ranks has one immediate aim – a place in the top 16 ... that elite top group."" - Can {{ndash}} be used?
• "Players in the top 16 were seeded into the last-32 round of the 1988 World Snooker Championship, and received invitations to the 1988 Masters" - I don't see the need for that comma.
• "John Parrott, Mike Hallett and Dean Reynolds moved into the top 16 for the first time, while Kirk Stevens, Tony Meo and Ray Reardon fell out of the top 16" - The second "the top 16" could be replaced by an "it".
• "published in snooker magazines in June 1987" reads a bit vague, I think. What are "snooker magazines"? How many of those were there? Is it a set list? Maybe a bit more of information could be provided in a note.

• I've taken that out. The list was published around 18 May 1987 (given that it got press mentions on 19 May), but I'm pretty sure that no source would have published anything beyond the top 20 before Snooker Scene and Pot Black both had the full list in their June issues. Let me know if you think I should add something back in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As per MOS:LISTBULLET, "Use the same grammatical form for all elements in a list, and do not mix sentences and sentence fragments as elements, for example when the elements are". Sentences and fragments are mixed here, but I don't think that's a problem here. Anyway, given that there are full sentences, I think final periods would be more appropriate, and then the capitalization at the beginning of each element makes more sense.
• There's only one "Smith 1987", so there's no need for the "a".

• "Smith, Terry (19 May 1987). "Hendry makes giant leap". The Daily Telegraph. p. 25." is treated as a "Smith 1987" and taking out the a's produces "Harv error: CITEREFSmith1987 has multiple targets (2×)." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see in the examples given in MOS:ALT, I don't think the alternative text has to be that vague. "A man" could be replaced by "Steve Davis" in the first one and "Jimmy White" in the second one.

That's all I saw. Thank you for your effort, BennyOnTheLoose. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, Alavense. I've implemented the changes, except where noted above. Please let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt responses, BennyOnTheLoose. I did this to avoid having the "a" alongside the year. You can revert it if you don't like it. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've made a note of that! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• 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. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. In particular, "1985–86 season" and "1986–87 season" header cell should have scope as colgroup, and the various cells under it "MT" to "WC" should have scope=col.
• "'(New)' denotes a player who was new to the tour for the 1987–88 season." - This can be removed since it isn't referenced in the table. Please ping me when you have fixed these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks, MPGuy2824. Hopefully I've implemented the changes correctly - let me know if not. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support promotion. P.S. Given that the cells have numbers, there is no need to add "data-sort-type=text" to the various header cells. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I'd appreciate comments at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All images self-published, AGF.
• All images have alt text.
• All images properly captioned.
• All images relevant to the text.

Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a comprehensive list of equipment for the discipline of rock climbing. While individual elements of rock climbing equipment will change/evolve, the essence is quite stable. Rock climbing is now a new Olympic Sport, so I think this area will get even more attention in the future. I had proposed it as a GA but the recommendation was that the article was more of a list, which is correct, and that it would be a good suggestion as an FL per Talk:Rock-climbing equipment/GA1. thank you. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

This review will take me a little while – feel free to ping me if I go more than a few days without following up.

• Images need alt text

Done.

• "And finally" → "Finally,"

Done.

• The lead lists modern devices with the older devices they replaced – where is this information supported in the body? For instance, I see no mention of chockstones after the lead.

Done., I have mentioned chockstones in the body, where they were replaced by nuts.

• Not technically wrong, but the list has a tendency to overuse parentheses; some of them can be reworked
  • Example: Under Type of climbing, "and its X variant" doesn't need parentheses

Done., hopefully that is better now.

• • Another example: The second paragraph of Ropes (starting with "Some climbers will use...") has 4 sets of parentheses in one sentence. This ends up feeling really choppy.

Done., and agree, hopefully better now.

• Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, write out acronyms where they first appear: UIAA, CEN, OSHA, maybe CE marking?

Done., CE marking is the actual name here.

• "in lieu CEN" → "in lieu of CEN"

Done.

• "which are (circa 7–8 mm)" – misuse of parentheses

Done.

• "(or 'tape')," – no comma needed

Done.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted that you are willing to help @RunningTiger123. This is (clearly) my first attempt at Featured article status. I have a few GAs under my belt and I think I am writing at a reasonable GA standard, but have little concept of FA stardard, but if you are up for it, I would love to learn and happy to spend time on this with you at whatever pace you prefer. thanks again :) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

• "European European Committee for Standardization" – redundant

Done.

• "e.g. the asymmetric/offset D-shape is the most common" – misuse of "e.g."

Done.

• • "e.g." means "for example" – if you substitute "for example" in place of "e.g." and it doesn't make sense, you're using the wrong phrase

understand thanks,

• "(and materials used)" – no need for parentheses

Done.

• "e.g. they require little in the way of gear-carrying loops" – another misuse of "e.g."

Done.

• "e.g. to fit around heaving winter clothing" – same thing

Done.

• Link Petzl and Wild Country at first occurrence (as well as any other companies)

Done.

• First paragraph under Belay devices is unsourced

Done.

• "e.g. a static rope that is hanging from a fixed anchor" – another "e.g."

Done.

• "Petzel Traxion" – typo for Petzl

Done.

• "Petzel Micro Traxion, and Camp Lift" – no comma needed, also same typo?

Done.

• "SCLDs" – should be SLCDs? (occurs twice)

Done.

• "like a Hex" – use lowercase for consistency

Done.

• Don't hyphenate "bolt-hangers" for consistency

Done.

• "stands one on aider" – I think this should be "stands on one aider"?

Done.

• "Rock climbing hammers are mainly used..." – bullet point doesn't follow the same opening format as all of the others

Done.

• A lot of bullet points under Miscellaneous equipment are unsourced

Done., I also added one extra item, the Knee pad, which is a commonly used piece of equipment

• "is used by all rock climbers" – all is a strong word, so it either needs to be clearly sourced or removed

Done., changed to "is very popular amongst rock climbers"

• Remove comma after parentheses for medical tape

Done.

• Suggest archiving web sources (see WP:IABOT)

checking this.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123, thanks for those comments. I have made all of the changes but I am not sure I understand the last one re WP:IABOT? My understanding is that that bot runs automatically, or am I meant to run it? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can run IABot on demand here – it's not required but it can be nice to include. Also, I think you missed the "e.g. a static rope..." comment above, but I don't think it's worth waiting to support over that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, have fixed the "static rope" now, and I will run the IAB. Thanks so much for your help and comments on this. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just ran the IABot as well - wasn't aware of that. Thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General

• Be conscientious of your use of "where", which is often not the best word for what you are trying to say.

done, good point and have reduced the # of where's to 3

• I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policy on "e.g."... Ill try to see if I can find something.

I found MOS:ABBR, and while there is no mention of "e.g." it does use the term a lot?

• You use a lot of parentheses; not necessarily bad but it is best to try to word sentences in such a way that this isn't needed as much.

That is a fair point. I have taken out most cases where they are used outside of when it is an "(e.g. )" or "(also known as..)" situation.

Lead

• Why is "rock-climbing" hyphenated in the title and the article? Rock climbing isn't.

I am not sure about the grammar of whether combining the word "equipment" necessitates the hyphen. I have found books with/without the hyphen. I am happy to do either way but would need admin support to remove it as it was originally moved from the existing rock climbing equipment in 2011?

When this FLC is done, it should be moved. I've never seen the hyphen before and don't see any grammatical necessity for it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you link "climbing" as climbing in the first sentence?

done

• Bouldering needs the least equipment outside of shoes and chalk and optional crash pads. replace the first "and" with a comma.

done

• Finally, aid climbing uses unique equipment (e.g. aiders). - add to assist the climber in upward movement (e.g. aiders) or something similar

done, said ".. to give mechanical assistance to the climber in their upward movement (e.g. aiders)"

• done manually, and with greater control (in all conditions) and less effort delete the first "and"

done

Use and certification

• Equipment is limited to climbing shoes and chalk (with chalk bag). add "generally" before "limited" as neither shoes nor chalk are technically actually required to climb

done

• variant, adds a rope, harness, and belay device, but no general climbing protection outside of that which is used to create the anchor point at the top of the climb from which the top rope is hung (which is usually done with carabiners, slings, and/or cord) run-on sentence. Recommend a full stop after "belay device"

done

• Recommend replacing "in-situ" with on-site or linking in-situ

done, replaced with on-site

• Why is "lead-climbing" hyphenated? Lead climbing isn't.

done, should not be hyphenated

• every pitch needs to be solo climbed (SLDs) what is "SLDs" referencing here? SLDs is later defined in the article as "self-locking devices"

done, expanded to self-locking device and added "using"

• At least link "Brexit" or explain. Like "After the United Kingdom left the European Union, it adopted the UKCA certification in place of the CEN.

done, used your wording which is better

• UKCA needs to be defined

done, linked to the UKCA marking article

Ropes and slings

• Some climbers will use a single full-thickness climbing rope of circa 9–11 mm circa -> approximately. mm should be defined ({{Abbr}})

done for both

• both shouldn't be italicized

done

• "Circa" again, just use the more common "approximately"

done it for the full article

• Where two thinner ropes are used that are both clipped into each protection point (i.e. it is not to reduce rope drag, but instead to have a backup rope for long climbs), it is known as twin roping add in the 7-8 mm thickness after "tinner rope", like two thinner ropes, typically 7-8 mm in thickness, are. Also, it would sound better to just start with Twin roping is...

done all suggestions

• Climbers use webbing that has been sewn using a certified standard of reinforced stitching into various lengths of closed loops called "slings" (or "runners"), which can be used in a wide range of situations, including wrapping around sections of rock (e.g. for abseiling, or creating belay anchors, or as passive protection), or tied to other equipment—often via carabiners—to create a longer version of a quickdraw or even a makeshift lanyard. long run-on sentence. Find somewhere to split into two.

done.

• "Circa" again

done, replaced for full article.

• Cord loops (also known as "cordelettes") serve a wide variety of functions in rock climbing including creating friction prusik knots for ascending or gripping fixed climbing ropes, usually using thinner circa 5–6 mm cord, or for attaching to, and equalizing forces across, multiple fixed anchors points,[15] such as when setting up abseil or belay anchors on multi-pitch climbing routes, usually using thicker circa 7–8 mm cord. long run-on sentence again. Split.

done

Rope devices

• You define "SLD" multiple times in the article. You also link the second use of the term. You should really link and define at the first instance. Maybe move the SLD section up above descenders?

done, per above, I have now linked to it at its first mention in the "Type of climbing" sub-section. Given that, have not moved the SLD section above Descenders, and left in alphabetical order?

Protection devices

• This section is the only one where you introduce the term with a full stop immediately after (e.g. Hexes. instead of Hexes are...). Recommend changing to be consistent.

done, have changed to be consistent with the rest of the article

• Tricams are typically cheaper and lighter than SLCDs, and are less in use today. and -> but and no comma needed

done

• Similar to the previous section, you use SLCD before you define it. Maybe move "Active" before "Passive"

done, swapped

• is attached into which carabiners (and quickdraws) can be clipped. no need for the parentheses.

done

• decade, but have a finite, comma not need

done

• protection of choice, but are still, comma not needed

done

• Define or link "crag"

done, linked to crag (climbing)

Aid equipment

• "aid" to the aid climber in ascending, no need for the second "aid"

done

• which are a central part of the technique of aid climbing where they are normally used in pairs some rewrite needed as it is confusing. Is it a central part of aid climbing only when used in pairs? "where" is probably not the right word either (when is more appropriate)

done, split sentence and re-worded to ".. and are a central part of the technique of aid climbing. They are normally used in pairs .."

• Like aiders, daisy chains are also a central part of aid climbing where they link the harness to the aider (see above); not sure what you mean by "where they link the harness to the aider" nor do I understand what the "see above" is referencing.

done, re-worded to "Like aiders, daisy chains are also a central part of aid climbing. They are used to attach the harness to the aider. Care has to be taken ...."

• Copperheads are only used in aid climbing and their low strength means that they can only handle the "static bodyweight" of an ascending aid climber, and will likely fail where the climber makes a dynamic fall. the first and should be a "but" and the comma before the second "and" isn't needed

done

• These are steel hooks of various shapes (e.g. bat hook, talon hook, grappling hook, etc.,) that are hung from cracks and flakes (e.g. the fifi hook and skyhook). Mostly used in aid climbing, but they have been used in extreme traditional climbing routes as a last resort (i.e.hook placements may not withstand a dynamic fall). -> Steel hooks of various shapes (e.g. bat hook, talon hook, grappling hook, etc.,) are hung from cracks and flakes (e.g. the fifi hook and skyhook). They are mostly used in aid climbing but have been used in extreme traditional climbing routes as a last resort (i.e. the hook placements may not withstand a dynamic fall). Note that in my update, I fixed a missing space between "i.e." and "hook"

done, and merged sentence with the heading of "Hooks", per earlier changes.

• These are mainly used by aid climbers to hammer in various types of pitons while ascending routes; note that clean aid climbing does not allow the use of hammers as all clean aid equipment must only be inserted on a temporary basis. -> A type of hammer made insert various types of pitons whilee ascending routes; clean aid climbing does not allow the use of hammers because all clean aid equipment must only be inserted on a temporary basis.

done

Clothing equipment

• The anchor link to belay glasses doesn't work for me (i.e. it doesn't go to the specific term in that page)

done, linked to the Belay glasses article

• Belay gloves are used to protect the hands when doing lots of belaying (especially on big wall climbing routes), and their construction from leather or other hard-wearing materials, generally improves grip with the rope, which lessens the risk of a failure of the belay system. I would recommend deleting ""when doing lots of belaying" as an obvious statement. Then add a full stop after the parenthetical.

done

• vulcanization should be linked ("vulcanized")

done

• "edging", and softer delete the comma

done

• particularly where the falling lead climber is flipped over. where -> when

done

Misc equipment

• This is the only section without an intro sentence. Recommend adding one for consistency.

done

• , which could cause ankle or back injuries. -> leading to injury.

done

• that has been dangerously worn down delete "dangerously" as editorializing

done

• Nut tools should be singular or "are" should be used

done, made singular

• climbers even use toothbrushes to clean the smallest holds without damaging them -> toothbrushes may be used to clean the smallest holds without damaging them

done

Training equipment

• A narrow flexible (e.g. it can be rolled up) all-metal, or PVC/webbing, ladder that, too many consecutive adjectives. Reword to something like A narrow and flexible ladder, typically capable of being rolled up, made from metal, PVC or webbing that

done

• that may be climbed up and down without the aid of the feet. replace "may" with "is typically"

done

• the "hangboard" is focused on change to "was developed to focus on"

done, re-worded the two sentences to say "is related to the campus board and was developed to focus on building static arm and finger strength;"

See also

• The Wikimedia commons box goes in the "External links" section per its documentation

done

Images

• All photos are appropriately licensed, captioned and have alt text. All do a good job of helping the article.

Nice work! Aszx5000 Please ping me when you are ready. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gonzo fan2007 - only just back from my travels over the last few weeks but will get to work on the above shortly. Much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007:. Thanks for all your great input and comments listed above, all of which I have now hopefully incorporated into the article. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, really nice work on what is an atypical and challenging list Aszx5000. I made two small copyedits in the article, hope that they are ok with you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes are great and your support is very much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Broc (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created this list, with the aim to fulfill the featured list criteria from the start. I believe it does meet all of them, hence my nomination. Switzerland has been closely linked to the Nobel prize since the start, and a large number of laureates were Swiss. Broc (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did significantly expand the last lead paragraph, which at the time of nomination only included Switzerland is among the countries with the highest number of Nobel laureates, both in total and per capita. I wanted to add some context with explanations that have been published in Swiss media, as well as a remark on the general Nobel controversies (Western bias is a pretty obvious one). This should provide better context and more WP:NPOV, avoiding the mildly celebratory tone that country-based lists end up having. Broc (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Images need alt text.
• Use upright scaling instead of defining the size of an image. See WP:PIC#Thumbnail sizes.
  • Note to future reviewers: have not looked into copyright status of images yet. Not a full image review.
• "The latest Swiss laureates are Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz, who received the Nobel for Physics in 2019." --> "The latest Swiss laureates are Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2019."

Excited to see this list nominated! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Staraction! I added alt text to all images and changed the sentence as you suggested. Upright scaling can only be used with thumbnails, which might not be the best option in a table. What would you recommend? Broc (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added upright scaling using "frameless" option. Broc (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2024 (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 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. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row. In the case of this table, I think the primary column is the "Laureate" column which contains their name.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done thanks for the inputs, @MPGuy2824 Broc (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• List of Indian Nobel laureates seems to be only other nation-based nobel laureates list. It has a section of nominees who didn't win the award. You could consider adding them here too.
• The last paragraph of the lead section is just a single sentence. See if you can merge it with one of the paragraphs above it.
• Run IABot on the list.
• The Telegraph reference is generating a CS1 error. Please fix.
• That's all that I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 I adapted the lead section as suggested, ran IABot, and fixed the CS1 error.

  Regarding the list of nominees, I have a few concerns:

  1. A list of Swiss Nobel laureates certainly fulfills WP:NLIST, given the amount of sources publishing on the topic ([15][16][17][18] just to link a few). However, I could not find a published list of Swiss Nobel nominees.
  2. List of Indian Nobel laureates nicely distinguishes between Indian nationals at birth, individuals of Indian origin, people with acquired citizenship, but does so only for the list of laureates and not for the nominees. I am then left to wonder what the selection criterion for the nominees section was.
  3. The lack of a published list of Swiss Nobel nominees, combined with the relatively arbitrary definition of what "Swiss" means (in the case of laureates, "held Swiss citizenship at the time of the award" seems a commonly accepted criterion, but I do not know what would be a viable one for nominees), would make the creation of a list of nominees rather close to WP:OR, in my opinion.

  Broc (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can wikilink a few more terms/names like "Inter-Parliamentary Union", "Olympian Spring", "Fridtjof Nansen" and "Geneva Convention", but I'll support in advance of those changes. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rationale for 'Nansen International Office for Refugees' is unreferenced. You could also add an emdash in the logo column of the same entry.

  Fixed, thanks Broc (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For Jack Steinberger, it is mentioned that he acquired honorary Swiss citizenship in 2006. However, the source states that he acquired honorary citizenship of a German town in 2006. Could you please clarify this?

  My mistake, he acquired honorary citizenship in 2000 from Geneva, per source. Broc (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Does the bestowal of honorary citizenship by a Swiss city or canton amount to acquisition of Swiss citizenship, like in the case of Max Theiler and Kofi Annan? If not, could they be put in the same category as Pauli? Nitro Absynthe (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is also a very valid question. The Swiss citizenship is given first by the city, then by the canton, and finally by the confederation. Per the Federal Act on Swiss Citizenship , "The granting of honorary citizenship to a foreign national by a canton or municipality without a federal naturalization permit does not have the same effect as naturalization." User:Nitro Absynthe should I rather split the table in two sections, one with the naturalized people (only Pauli) and one with the honorary citizens? Broc (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Broc, the nominator, as these comments have gone unaddressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I missed the comment in my watchlist. I answered above. Broc (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Broc, I feel like splitting would be better to avoid confusion. Also, there might be some discrepancy regarding Theiler's citizenship. According to this report by SERI (p. 16), Max Theiler is listed as a Swiss citizen. Maybe he could be placed in the naturalized citizen section with Pauli and Steinberger. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nitro Absynthe uhm that's a tricky one. The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland mentions that Theiler was Swiss citizen by birth (place of origin: Hasle), which makes sense as his parents were Swiss. On the other hand, he certainly received a honorary citizenship, again from Hasle, in 1952, which would not make sense if he already was a citizen. However, according to the list you shared, he was Swiss when he received the prize. I think it might be best to add him in the main list with a footnote. Broc (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Broc, agreed. I think that's better. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nitro Absynthe done, with footnotes on Theiler and Annan. Thanks a lot for raising these points, I think the list is better off now. Broc (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's better to add Template:Nobel Prizes--金色黎明 (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Broc (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  support--金色黎明 (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as still awaiting a source review in the list, so will give it a shot.

• List entries: Main

Verifying these match Das sind alle Schweizer Nobelpreisträger with the exceptions of Pauli (exclusion explained in lede) and Hermann Staudinger (explained in footnote).

• Table row entries: References

I spot-checked a few and they all appear to be to the Nobel website, verifying the row data. Did not check every single one but I imagine this is the least controversial part of the article.

• List entries: Later citizenship

Pauli is fine per above. Steinberger, though... the source just says "ab 2000 von Genf" and his Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about him acquiring Swiss citizenship late in life. The NZZ.ch "Das sind alle Schweizer Nobelpreisträger" list above doesn't include him, and it was clearly created after 2000. Is there a source verifying this alleged Swiss citizenship more directly? For Koffi Annan, I'm of the opinion that honorary citizenship isn't enough to qualify for what this article is talking about. It's fine to discuss him in a footnote but I don't think this deserves a full table row, especially since the above NZZ.ch source also doesn't include him but does include other later-Swiss citizens like Pauli. Like, it would be weird to call Winston Churchill an American Nobel laureate because of his honorary American citizenship, right?

• Regarding Steinberger, this page from the Swiss Physical Society mentions Seit 2000 Bürger von Genf and the Swissinfo article mentions Er wirkte ab 1968 am Kernforschungszentrum CERN in Genf und wurde im Jahr 2000 eingebürgert. I would consider the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland to be a very reliable source, but I added the other two as well. Regarding Kofi Annan, I followed your suggestion and moved it to footnote [nb 3].Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Verified now, thanks. (Also, for clarity, I wasn't questioning the reliability of the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, but rather the question of whether it was even indicating Swiss citizenship at all, given that the mention was brief and oblique.)

• Additionally, four laureates acquired Swiss citizenship after the award:

Who's the fourth laureate? (Although it should be maybe two or three anyway per above if Annan is reduced to footnote status.)

• Fixed. Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ten organizations headquartered in Switzerland have received the Nobel Prize for Peace. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been awarded twice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross three times. Four of these organizations were also founded in Switzerland, and they all have their headquarters in Geneva, a city hosting more than 40 international organizations and 750 non-governmental organizations.[7]

I can't find this in either https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/nobel-prize-facts/ or the 2018 archived version. It all looks pretty non-controversial but perhaps needs a better source? Certainly should be easy to get a source on Geneva hosting a ton of UN & other global orgs.

• This was my mistake, I forgot to add the source I used. Fixed it now by adding a source from the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Geneva facts look good. However the main concern was the "ten organizations headquartered in Switzerland" bit, which is really the same question as sourcing the orgs list. See below for ideas on that.

• List entries: Organizations

While it's not the end of the world if we do a tad bit of synthesis here... is there a source that explicitly lists this out?

• I couldn't find a complete list, no. There is one at the bottom here [19] and here, but neither are comprehensive. I'm not sure how I could add these to the list, do you have a suggestion? Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is where we write a fancy, long reference that explains where this is coming from when it's not from a source directly. You can include the other two links to prove that the topic of Swiss organizations winning Nobels isn't synthesis even if the lists aren't mirrored exactly. Something like:

  <ref>Ten organizations are based on the comprehensive list of Organization Winners at: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/nobel-prize-awarded-organizations/ (format this nicely as a cite). Non-comprehensive lists discussing the matter can be found at: (your two links here).</ref>

  Note that you can format long references drawing on multiple sources a little more nicely with Template:Multiref2 or Template:Unbulleted list citebundle if you'd like. Can be handy to ensure the citations for webpages are on new lines. Normally I'd stick the reference in the title of the table, but since you're using a style that doesn't have titles for tables, having it in the lede section on the "Ten Swiss organizations" line is fine too.

• Switzerland is among the countries with the highest number of Nobel laureates, both in total and per capita

The "per capita" article has been deleted, FWIW. (Swiss Info Source does check out, for all it's something of a statistical artifact.)

• What do you mean, the article has been deleted? I can still access both articles used as references. Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Several factors have been suggested as possible explanation, including large public funding for research,[10]

[20] and [21] verify the raw amount of funding (although it's not clear it's even "public" funding - GTranslate offers "The private sector not only finances 65 percent of research and development here" for one line), but don't seem to connect it to the Nobel Prize or awards in general at all. The real reference here is https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/nach-physik-auszeichnung-deshalb-bringt-die-schweiz-so-viele-nobelpreistraeger-hervor - I'd reformulate the SNF links to be "see alsos" in the reference primarily cited to the SRF article, and then reuse that reference for both large public funding for research and good universities.

• Fixed. Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Nobel Prize has also been often recognized as being biased towards Western countries.[12][13][14]

Nitpick: None of the sources seem to use the word "Switzerland" or "Swiss" (don't have access to the full Telegraph article so can't be sure there). Obviously Switzerland is a Western country, but it could be argued that the relevance of this isn't fully established. Not demanding this be removed, just it'd be nice if there was a source connecting the dots more directly. (I do get the above comment that this is to avoid being overly celebratory / chest-puffy.)

• Unfortunately, I could not find such source. However, omitting such important aspect (a widely recognized bias of Nobel prizes in favor of Western countries) only because it does not specifically mention Switzerland would not be according to WP:NPOV and give a rather promotional tone to the article. I do believe the current statement gives a fuller picture. Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you gave it a look, it's fine. I agree it's a positive addition to the article, just a nice-to-have rather than a requirement on tying this to Swiss laureates.

• According to Nobel laureate Werner Arber, the large number of awards to Swiss nationals is "likely a statistical anomaly".

True, and in the cited source, but the source ALSO includes Richard Ernst saying that it's not a coincidence and he's confident Switzerland will remain on top in the future. Both Arber and Ernst are Nobel laureates, but there's really little reason to think that either would be THAT much more informed about Nobel-politics than, say, a historian of science like Roland Müller mentioned in passing in the article. (Plenty of Nobel laureates out there with weird opinions on things, cough, cough, James Watson.) While keeping the snappy Arber quote is fine, do you have any other sources saying it's a statistical anomaly so it's not resting solely on him? (Or, alternatively, include the nationalist "it's because the Swiss are just so awesome!" by contrast first, since it's coming from an equivalently weighted source, even if we both think it's "wrong".)

• Fixed by adding statement from Ernst. Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments unrelated to sources:

• Peace and Economic Sciences[nb 1],[1]

Shouldn't the footnote go after the punctuation as well? Also, this is a case where the Oxford comma is mandatory IMO even in an article that doesn't use that style, because there's an earlier entry on the list titled "Physiology or Medicine". This makes it appear that "Peace and Economic Sciences" is possibly a Nobel category as well, so a comma to set apart each list entry is required IMO.

• Fixed. Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Birth & Death dates in the list

This has nothing to do with the sources, but I will plant my flag to plead that birth & death dates don't matter in this context. I know a lot of lists do include this information, and it is indeed in the Nobel webpage blurbs, but it's irrelevant and those other lists shouldn't include it either. "Age at time of Nobel award" perhaps but otherwise it's not relevant to this list. Not a blocking comment, it's up to you, but I'd personally either omit entirely, or just have a single column with both birth & death dates, sortable by birth dates. (Nobody should want to sort by death dates anyway? What would that even mean?) Totally optional, just dropping off my two cents.

Nice work overall. SnowFire (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that it's best to reply after a person's comment and to ping them @Broc, that way @SnowFire can voice their support or point out things that still need to be addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I'm not done addressing all point yet, will do that as soon as I have a moment :) Broc (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire I think I addressed all points, see individual comments right below yours. Please let me know your thoughts.

As for birth and death dates: I removed the option to sort by death date (not very meaningful indeed). Age at the time of award might also be a valuable addition as the age of the laureates is often a point of discussion regarding Nobel prizes. I might add that at a later point, but would not want to remove the information in the current table, as the format is the same the Nobel Prize website uses in its blurbs. Broc (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, like I said I know that others opinions differs with mine on this, so I wanted to bring it up as a thought, but if you think it's relevant enough, go for it.

Just crafting a fancy citation for the ten orgs issue remaining - think we're very close! (I'd be happy to give it a shot if you'd like too.) SnowFire (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire I added the reference as you suggested in [nb 4], updated the entry from the IPB and removed the ICBL (I had initially added the entry from the German Wikipedia list, but I can't find evidence they were based in Geneva at the time of the award). Double-checking the list was worth it. Broc (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the new footnote should do nicely, and more closely drawing the line from the sources definitely helps. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sources look good to me. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC) [22].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up next in the United States congressional delegations series from me is the state of Colorado! Previous lists included Utah, Indiana, Hawaii, Connecticut, and Arizona. I've tried my best to implement all the suggestions provided in previous nominations (in particular, with referencing; thank you EN-Jungwon!). Looking forward to hearing more of those suggestions! Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The current dean of the Colorado delegation is" - what does this mean?
• "eight representatives comprising of five Democrats and three Republicans" - either "comprising" or "consisting of" would be grammatically valid but "comprising of" is not
• You have two consecutive sentences which start with "Many senators from Colorado" and "Many of Colorado's senators". Reword to avoid repetition......?
• Schroeder and Polis image captions need full stops
• "Colorado was apportioned with two seats" => "Colorado was apportioned two seats"
• THat's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @ChrisTheDude, I believe I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out. Thanks as always for your prompt feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• In the "2003–2023: 7 seats" table, the header cells "1st" through "7th" need to have "scope=col". Please check the other tables for this issue too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @MPGuy2824, thanks for your feedback, as always. I've fixed this issue where it occurred. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at sources and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• I'm not too familiar with all the sources, so give me a little time to investigate. No immediate red flags, though.

• Update: All sources appear to be appropriate. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Newspaper citations are inconsistent, e.g. whether publisher and/or location are specified. Is there a rationale for this (e.g. based on how well known the papers are?)
• New York Times citations are inconsistent, e.g.'"Congressman Vaile Dies in Automobile". The New York Times. New York, New York.' has the location but '"Lawrence Lewis, Congressman, Dies". The New York Times.' doesn't.
• In the Current U.S. representatives from Colorado table, what's the soure for "Incumbent since"?
• United States Senate- I think it would be better to have the refs for Henry M. Teller and Ken Salazar at the end of the sentence, as the sources jointly verify the whole sentence. Same for John F. Shafroth and Edwin C. Johnson - but feel free to point me to policy/precedent/consensus for the current positioning of the references.

General

• I would find it useful to have a bit more detail about the CPVI ratings in the Current delegation section (not too much, just a sentence or two), to help interpret "D+29", "D+4" etc.
• The Current U.S. representatives from Colorado table has "residence" but the source has hometown. Are these equivalent in American English? (To me, a hometown is where one was born or is from, not necessarily the current residence.)

All in all, it's looking good, Staraction. I will have a further review for consistency of the citations, but it would be helpful to have your replies on the points above first. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose Hi, thanks for your review and apologies it took so long to respond! I believe I've fixed everything you've pointed out so far. (Note: my rationale is that if published originally online, I'm not including the city published for NYT. But I fixed all the other issues with that). Thanks again! Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Staraction. Just two tiny points more, I think. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @BennyOnTheLoose, thanks again for your comments! I've added the publication location to the Schulte citation. I've removed locations from citations per the citation template instructions: "[Location:] generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the publication place". Let me know if this causes any issues or if you see anything else! Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two books cited; one has publication location and the other doesn't. I'd suggest adding it in to the Schulte citation.
• Is New York City a better link than New York, New York? The former seems to be prevalent on Wikipedia but I couldn't find any policy or guidance.

And finally...

• The language=en parameters seem to be redundant but they aren't doing any harm. Is the Schulte book really in language=en-gb though?
• I don't think we need website=Census.gov and publisher=United States Census Bureau but that's not enough to hold up a source review pass.
• I made a few minor tweaks including some suggested by scripts; please check these and revert any that are objectionable.

• Pass for source review. I haven't formally done any spot checks because each time I clicked through a link I found the relevant info supported. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - meets the FL criteria IMO. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Diana DeGette official photo (cropped).jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be verified here.
• File:Joe Neguse, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be verified here.
• File:Jason Crow, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be found in the archived link.
• File:TAYLOR, EDWARD T. REPRESENTATIVE LCCN2016861347 (cropped).jpg- Source mentions that the image is dated 'between 1905 and 1945'. In the image summary, the date mentioned is 1905.
• File:PatSchroeder.jpg- I think it'd be better to add link to specific page in source for reader's convenience.
• File:Jared Polis Official 2012.jpg- Source link broken, but can be found in the archived link.
• If you wish, you can add archived links for those images where source link is broken.
• All images have alt text.
• All images appropriately captioned.
• All images relevant to text. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nitro Absynthe Thanks for your review and apologies it took so long to get back to you! I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out. In particular, for all the images with images not found in source link as well as those where the image was in an archive, I've added an archive link on the Commons page. Please let me know if there's anything else that needs to be fixed! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Staraction, looks good to me. Support on images. Good work! Nitro Absynthe (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC) [23].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to my nomination of the 2018 Winter Olympics medal table, I decided I wanted to complete a Summer Olympics medal table as well. It's based on other Summer Olympics medal tables that have also been promoted to featured list status, as well as the feedback provided at the other Summer Olympics medal table nomination. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "With 18 total Olympic medals, Latynin", should be Latynina.
• "for most Olympic medals," could be reworded as "for the most Olympic medals for an individual".
• "She also became, and still is, the record holder for most gold and total Olympic medals by a female athlete.", would this need an "As of,..."?
• The caption in the image should probably specify "at these games", as "competing athlete" could probably sound like an active athlete.
• Could add a footnote explaining "United Team of Germany".

Here are my comments, ping me once you're done! Arconning (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "With 18 total Olympic medals, Latynin", should be Latynina. – D'oh... fixed.
• "for most Olympic medals," could be reworded as "for the most Olympic medals for an individual". – Ehhh, I felt it was implied, but I've tweaked it.
• "She also became, and still is, the record holder for most gold and total Olympic medals by a female athlete.", would this need an "As of,..."? – Do we? I would think that's only really necessary if there's frequent changes in the rankings. I don't love the idea of this having to be updated every year, as opposed to being updated as necessary.
• The caption in the image should probably specify "at these games", as "competing athlete" could probably sound like an active athlete. – I personally don't read it this way. I think it's clear enough based on the context of "... at the 1964 Summer Olympics, the most of any competing athlete"
• Could add a footnote explaining "United Team of Germany". – Done.

I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Thank you so much for the review @Arconning! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, good luck! Arconning (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can suggest is changing "over Taiwan's (Republic of China) participation" to "over the participation of Taiwan (Republic of China)", which just seems to read a bit more elegantly to me....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, an IP actually added the names in brackets, which I felt were unnecessary and also interrupted the flow. I've also implemented your wording, which is definitely more elegant. Thank you very much for taking a look and providing feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

• The sources all look reliable for the purposes they are used and the references are filled out with the necessary details. Spotchecks not done but I could upon request.

Image review - pass

• The source link for the file works, and since it ought to have been taken in 1964 (over 60 years ago), the copyright information at the file page applies and makes sense.

Overall, support on those and the prose as well. No issues there.--NØ 19:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

* "relating to the history of the Green Bay Packers, an American football in the National Football League (NFL)". Is this meant to say an American football team

• There is a stray curly bracket in the table "17}"

-- EN-Jungwon 10:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: I think this was meant as a reply to another nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, now that's embarrassing. Yep this was meant for Packers Heritage Trail. I had both nomination pages open and didn't look at the title before adding my comments. I have stricken my comments. Now I'll definitely come back and review this list too. Again sorry for the confusion. -- EN-Jungwon 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: No worries at all! I happened to have reviewed the exact same list and knew exactly what you were talking about, gave me a good laugh :P Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 26 the title has changed

Reference formatting is consistent. Link checker shows no issues. -- EN-Jungwon 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @EN-Jungwon: Sorry for the delay in responding. I've updated the title of the article, and updated the date of the archive. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EN-Jungwon 23:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC) [24].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): 金色黎明 (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because that has fulfill the condition 金色黎明 (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Roosevelt in the lead
• "Ref" column header should be "Refs" as there are multiple refs on every row
• "For the purpose of this list, other candidates are defined as those who finished in third place in the state" - did nobody at all finish third in 1944, 1960, etc?
• Note b is missing the word "the" before "ballot" and also needs a full stop
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your guidance! Upon investigating the source, I have confirmed that only two candidates received votes in the elections of 1944, 1956, 1960, and 1964.--金色黎明 (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bergland's results in 1984 are erroneous: 12,000 votes would be more than 6% of that election. Presidential elections, 1789–1996 gives his vote total as 2,357.
• The sources are well formatted. For consistency's sake, I'd put Menendez 2005 into an SFN; I know you only cite it once, but that way all the books will be in the works cited section.
• Additionally, this is the only one you have a location for; I'd remove it or add locations to the other books.
• Wikilink Walter Dean Burnham in the citation.

That's all from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your advice, I have addressed all the mentioned issues.--金色黎明 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wyoming was the first place in America to grant women the right to vote, in 1869, well before it joined the Union in 1890." --> "Wyoming granted women the right to vote in 1869, prior to joining the Union, and was the first place in America to do so." It already states that Wyoming joined the union in 1890 the sentence prior. Feel free to modify this sentence as you see fit as my prose usually isn't the best either but it felt a little clunky to read.

That's it! Well done & thanks for your work. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Staraction:Thanks for your advice, I have revised this sentence--金色黎明 (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good, support on prose! Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The "Winner", "Runner-up" and "Other candidate" header cells need to have colgroup as their scope.
• There is no need to add "text-align:left;" for the party color cell since it has no text. This can be removed from all of those cells.
• Given the note, you could just replace "Other candidate" with "Third-place candidate". Please ping me when these issues are fixed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824:Thanks for your advice, I have modified according to your suggestion. 金色黎明 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824:, i have modified ---金色黎明 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on accessibility and prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC) [25].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th nomination in the constituency series. I've improved the lead, added a history section, and converted the list into a table with more information than was present before. I've modelled it on similar FLs like Tripura and Mizoram. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• How are the constituencies formed? Why is there an enormous difference in size among them? Does Zambia have governance and representation issues because of this severe malapportionment?
• Would it make sense to list the Districts of Zambia covered in addition to the Province they're in?
• Why does Template:Zambian constituencies have a Sinjembela listed?
• I know this is a straightforward topic that might not have a ton of information, but the lead is still quite short and the table is just from a single source. Is there anything else that can be added to make this the best of Wikipedia? Reywas92^Talk 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reywas92, question: I am slightly new, but would that make it fail WP:CFORK? sorry if this is stupid 48JCL public (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure it's a cfork, but List of members of the National Assembly of Zambia (2021–2026) already has the names of constituencies, along with the incumbents, so there's some duplication there. This should have enough info to justify a separate page and a gold star. Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formation of constituencies: Added info to the lead.
  • I've added a district column to the table.
  • Sinjembela is a former constituency. Since it would pass NGEO, I didn't remove it from the template, but moved it to its own section.
  • I have an explanation for the disparity in constituencies, but it would be WP:OR, so I'm not adding it to the article. I'll provide my explanation here for folks who might be interested: The rule is that a constituency cannot cover more than a district. This wouldn't be a problem if there were 4 or 5 times the number of constituencies as districts, but Zambia has 116 districts and 156 constituencies. The highly populated districts cannot be divided into a lot of constituencies because of this. This was interesting to find out, so thanks for asking the question. I tried to look for studies about the disparity in constituency size, but came up with nothing, unfortunately.
  • If there is any other information that you or someone else can think of that is relevant to the list, I'm happy to do the research and add to the lead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Reywas92: Forgot to ping. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt-text for File:Zambia National Assembly Building.jpg is missing.
• Infobox could be expanded. Information like voting system and number of seats, which are mentioned in Tripura and Mizoram, could be included here as well.
• Ref 1 and Ref 10 (|archive-date=) follows ymd date format, while the rest of the citations follow dmy date format. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Fixed all of these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitro Absynthe: Forgot to ping. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lapadite

• The content in the [a] note should be cited.
• As this is an international topic, the article should include the corresponding templates for the English variety and date format used. Lapadite (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lapadite: Done both. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The seat of the assembly is at the capital of the country, Lusaka and" -> "The seat of the assembly is at the capital of the country, Lusaka, and"
• "the Vice President, the Speaker and one of the deputy speakers" -> "the Vice President, the Speaker, and one of the deputy speakers" (this one is optional considering MOS:OXFORD
• Perhaps add alt text to the seal of Zambia within the Politics of Zambia template?
• Add caption to infobox image - what is that building?
• Link first-past-the-post, President in body

That's it from me. Nice work, @MPGuy2824 Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Staraction: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done. Staraction (talk | contribs) 12:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I know this is a pain, but the information in the "Name" column being centered while the "Province" and "District" columns are left-align isn't consistent. Choose one or the other.
• I feel like the image order is weird. I would recommend the Infobox and {{Politics of Zambia}} be place d consecutively in the lead, and then move the Location of Zambia and the Constituencies image to the "List" section
• On that topic, "List" seems like a weird section title. Why not just "Constituencies"?
• The National Assembly of Zambia is the unicameral legislature of Zambia., the duplication of "Zambia" sounds bad. I think this is fine: The National Assembly is the unicameral legislature of Zambia.
• On that note, it would be nice to have some context for the country. Something like: The National Assembly is the unicameral legislature of Zambia, a landlocked country at the crossroads of Central, Southern and East Africa. (note, that text is from Zambia).
• Of them, 156 are elected I think Of those is the appropriate term here.
• every census, by the comma isn't needed.

That's what I got, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Fixed all. The country's locator map was added to give some geographical context to the reader, but I think duplication in the text is useful. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work.

• Zambia National Assembly Building.jpg has an appropriate CC tag and review.
• Coat of arms of Zambia.svg has an appropriate PD tag.
• Location Zambia AU Africa.svg has an appropriate PD tag. Following the comments above from Gonzo_fan2007, would be it be possible to locate this near the mention of Zambia's location?
• Zambian National Assembly constituencies.svg has an appropriate PD tag. The image lacks any key to show which constituency is which. If that would be too complicated, would be separate maps for each province showing the locations of the constituencies be an alternative?
• All images have ALT text (as noted by Nitro Absynthe above).
• Are there appropriate thumbnail images that could be used in the table as it is quite stark? simongraham (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved the Zambia locator map to just below the Infobox. Also moved the "Politics of Zambia" sidebar template to a much lower section of the page.
• The image lacks any key to show which constituency is which. I'll see if there is enough information to correctly add numbering to the image. Might take a few days.
• Are there appropriate thumbnail images that could be used in the table as it is quite stark? I did a cursory search for a few constituencies and there aren't images that would represent the constituency well. Assuming that the above numbering works out, I could use that to create a new image that would just show only the constituencies of a particular state and add that to the table. Doing the same thing for each state would reduce the starkness of the table. I'll ping you when these are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Simongraham: I've added numbers to the constituency map and the table. This should work as a key. See if you approve of my other idea of using state-wise subsets of this map to show in the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824: That sounds reasonable to me. It would be interesting to see if this also resolves another issue. Currently, I feel that the map may be too small for many screens, so it may be helpful, given the constraints of MOS:IMGSIZE, to make it larger. simongraham (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The National Assembly is the unicameral legislature of Zambia, a landlocked country at the crossroads of Central, Southern and East Africa. The seat of the assembly is at the capital of the country, Lusaka, and it is presided over by a Speaker and two deputy Speakers. The term of the assembly is five years, unless it is dissolved earlier." - none of this is sourced
• First three columns of the table are unsourced i.e. what's the source that the 156 constituency names listed here are the 156 constituencies that exist and what's the source that each is in the province and district listed?
• Ordering the table by district seems a bit odd, would it not make more sense to order by constituency? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude:

  • First paragraph of lead was unsourced - I've added a ref and reused refs from elsewhere. I've also tweaked the prose a bit. Please point out any issues that you notice.
  • First three columns of the table are unsourced I've moved refs to the table caption to make it clear that they cover the whole table, and not just the number of electors column.
  • Ordering the table by district seems a bit odd - This is how the election commission orders them. Per simongraham's comment above, I've added the numbering to the map and the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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