Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:


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

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

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

List of Nepalese kings[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 07:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This is about kings of Nepal who ruled from 1743 to its dissolution in 2008. 2008 was pretty recent, yeah. The civil war was a scary time to be part of. Crazy stories to listen to as well. Like, the communist would come to your house and take away your children or anyone to fight in the war. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 07:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments
  • "Shah died on 11 January 1775 after ruling over 31 years" => "Shah died on 11 January 1775 after ruling for over 31 years"
  • "by end of his reign" => "by the end of his reign"
  • "his son Pratap Singh Shah was coordinated as the king" - really don't think "coordinated" is the right word here. I would just say "appointed king"
  • "Pratap Singh was not very active in the unification campaign led by his father rather he was peaceful" - needs a comma before rather
  • "He died prematurely at the age of 26 in 1777, the same day his young son" => "He died prematurely at the age of 26 in 1777; on the same day his young son"
  • "with regencies of his mother, Queen Rajendra of Nepal, and then of his uncle, Bahadur Shah." => "with his mother, Queen Rajendra of Nepal, and later his uncle, Bahadur Shah, as regent."
  • "The king married Maithili Brahman widow, Kantavati Jha" - no need for that comma
  • He married her by taking an oath? Is that right?
  • "Upon Girvan Yuddha Bikram Shah was born" => "Upon Girvan Yuddha Bikram Shah being born"
  • "During the reign of Girvan, Anglo-Nepalese War broke out" => "During the reign of Girvan, the Anglo-Nepalese War broke out"
  • "which resulted in Nepal losing 1/3 of its territory" => "which resulted in Nepal losing a third of its territory"
  • Got to drop off now, will look at more later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Further comments
  • "with under the regency of his step-grandmother" => "under the regency of his step-grandmother"
  • "Surendra's grandson Prithvi Bir Bikram Shah became the king, he did not have many powers like his grandfather" => "Surendra's grandson Prithvi Bir Bikram Shah became the king, but like his grandfather he did not have many powers"
  • "Tribhuvan went to exile" => "Tribhuvan went into exile"
  • "in response by Rana, grandson of Tribhuvan, Gyanendra, was named the new king of Nepal" - this should be a separate sentence and also re-arranged to "in response Gyanendra, grandson of Tribhuvan, was named the new king of Nepal by Rana". Also, who is the Rana mentioned here? It's not clear.
  • "Upon his death, Mahendra was coordinated as the king" - again, "coordinated" is not an appropriate word here. Also, I would change "upon his death" to "upon Tribhuvan's death", as currently it reads as if Mahendra became king upon his own death :-)
  • The caption should start "From left to right, top to bottom"
  • Also, change part b to "Girvan Yuddha Bikram Shah, during whose reign the British attacked Nepal and forced him to sign the Treaty of Sugauli, which defined the present-day borders"
  • In note b, the word "officially" is spelt incorrectly
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

List of operas by Carl Maria von Weber[edit]

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

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

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Two fragments survive; was thought to be lost until 2000 where": I'm not sure I follow that. Were both lost? 2000 where, or 2000 when?
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. I see Chris has covered the prose in the lead. The coding in the table (including the sorting) was tricky, and you did a good job with it.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). No retrieval dates are needed (probably).
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Dank, just to keep you updated, I believe I've appropriately rephrased the line you mentioned. Best - Aza24 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I support this nomination! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 07:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions of Taiwan[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Reywas92
  • I don't see any yellow in the top map, so it shouldn't be in the key.
    • Commented out
  • The map only has Macedonia in purple, but there are lots of other countries which formerly had official missions. It seems that's because the rest are served by another one now, but that should be clearer here.
    • Added more detail. There are actually a few other countries (Panama, El Salvador and Sao Tome and Principe) that are purple, Macedonia is just the most obvious one.
  • You should state that the unofficial offices go by Economic and Cultural Representative Office rather than hiding it in a piped link.
    • Not all offices use the same nomenclature. As noted in the article, some offices forego one or two of these adjectives Although I could comb through all the offices' names and see which one most of them use, I think it would be easier to keep "representative offices" as a simple, all-encompassing term.
  • The two sentences about Hong Kong and Macau could be combined to for conciseness, also because it unnecessarily duplicates "In Macau".
    • Combined, also used the opportunity to eliminate more redundancies
  • Most of the 'Also serves' makes sense, but I really want to know why the one in the Czech Republic also serves Cape Verde. Idk if you know if how it'd fit in the list (since there's no article on the office) but that's interesting.
    • Upon further research and link-digging, it looks like the Bureau of Consular Affairs mistakenly listed Cape Verde as being under the office in Prague instead of Portugal on the main page. Fixed
  • Since there's an office in Guam, do you know why Palau also serves Guam?
    • Mistake on my part. Fixed
  • Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office is already linked and should not be in the see also
    • Removed
That's all I have for now. Thanks for the unique topic! Reywas92Talk 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing this! I have now responded to all of your comments. MSG17 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): ShahidTalk2me 00:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. A well-known Indian film actress who was recently seen in Christopher Nolan's Tenet. People might not know but she has quite a career behind her, and here it is. ShahidTalk2me 00:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • "She was launched by Raj Kapoor at age 14" - not keen on this wording, maybe change "launched" to "discovered"
  • "Kapadia retired from acting following her marriage to Indian actor Rajesh Khanna earlier in the same year" - not 100% clear (to me at least) which year is being referred to (I had to look at her own article to see when she actually got married), so I would change to "earlier in 1973"
  • "The early roles she played since her return" => "The early roles she played following her return"
  • In the table, characters with a surname should sort based on that
  • Think that's it from me - good work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks a lot for your comments. All done - prose suggestions applied, and all character names in table sorted. ShahidTalk2me 10:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Add alt text for the image.
  • If possible, please add any recent image of Kapadia.
  • "Her role as a Christian teenager from Goa established her as a youth fashion icon and her performance won her the Filmfare Award for Best Actress." It's clear that the role earned her that Filmfare. So why not remove the "her performance" bit from the sentence?
  • At ref 13, --> NDTV

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

  • In the table section: Feroz Khan, and Abhishek Sharma need to be linked to the correct page.
  • In both films she played women → In both films, she
  • specially → especially
  • Are any better lead images? Headshots
  • Per this, table captions should be included using Template:Sronly, for example, |+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}
  • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Thank you for your comments. All applied except for the image - the only headshot available already appears in the Kapadia article itself. ShahidTalk2me 12:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments by MSG17
  • Pati Parmeshwar is linked to the concept instead of the film.
  • Next, Pyar Ke Naam Qurbaan is out of order if the date of 1989 is correct, as it is sandwiched between two 1990 films. However, the article states that the film was actually released in early 1990. Please resolve this discrepancy.
  • The articles for sources should be linked consistently. For example, Bollywood Hungama should be linked in all citations that use it.
  • For Bumiller's citation, it doesn't make sense to link one page when you have cited multiple pages from the work. Remove that from the original citation in the bibliography and, if possible, link page 186 in the sfn ref to maintain consistency.

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

  • @MSG17: Thanks a lot for your comments, and I'm glad you find this interesting. I've applied all your comments, fixed the links and the technicality. Since linking all publishers in citations is not obligatory per MOS:DL, I kept just the first link for each publication. As for the Bumiller work, I've removed the link from the sfn to make it consistent with the other sources. ShahidTalk2me 01:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Great! I fixed the page thing on the root citation myself. Although publication links do have to be repeated for sortable table entries (as you don't know what order the user will see them in), you have already linked all that were used multiple times in the lead, so I withdraw that objection. Support MSG17 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

91st Academy Awards[edit]

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

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

  • "....or performed musical performances" - any way to reword this so you aren't essentially using the same word twice?
  • "AMPAS sought news ideas to the Academy sought ideas to revamp the show" - something very odd going on here......
  • "could hamper critically successful mainstream films from being nominated Best Picture" => "could hamper critically successful mainstream films from being nominated for Best Picture"
  • "despite the insistence of AMPAS that such movies can be eligible for both categories" => "despite the insistence of AMPAS that such movies could be eligible for both categories"
  • "The Los Angeles Philharmonic lead by conductor Gustavo Dudamel" => "The Los Angeles Philharmonic led by conductor Gustavo Dudamel"
  • Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • I support this nomination! Should the "juke box" be "jukebox"? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 07:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Billboard wrote it as two words so that is what I have gone with, I presume this was the standard usage in the era in question..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Mike Kable Young Gun Award[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The Mike Kable Young Gun Award recognises the best performing rookie in Australian touring car racing over the course of the season. Drivers such as Marcos Ambrose, Mark Winterbottom, James Courtney and Scott McLaughlin are past recipients of the award. This list has been revamped to a fully-referenced entry and look forward to receiving all comments and concerns. MWright96 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • "The Mike Kable Young Gun Award (officially the Mike Kable Rookie of the Year)" - if it is officially the Rookie of the Year award, why is the article titled Young Gun Award? Is that the WP:COMMONNAME for it? If so, why do people call it that and not its proper name? Might be worth a clarification.
  • "No one has won more than once as drivers from the second-tier championship have been honoured 13 times....." - this reads as if "as" is being used in the sense of "because" and it is saying that the reason nobody has won it more than once is because second-tier drivers have won it 13 times, which clearly isn't what you mean.
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Quick commentIn "young racing drivers Mike Kable", I take it that the third word is meant to be singular? That's the only nit-pick I have. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is "A$15,000" the accepted way of writing "fifteen thousand Australian dollars" on Wikipedia? Since this list is dealing with a clearly Australian context is it necessary to specify that they are Australian dollars? I wonder if "A$15,000" could be misinterpreted in this context as meaning "American dollars" by a reader unfamiliar with that abbreviation. With regards to this I also have to question whether some sort of rough conversion to New Zealand dollars may be appropriate since Supercars Championship events are also held in Aotearoa and numerous prominent drivers in the series have come from New Zealand. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography of E. T. Whittaker[edit]

Nominator(s): Footlessmouse (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, other than I think it now meets the criteria, I am a relatively new editor and I want to get some experience in featured content, as the standards here are the highest. I ultimately want to both improve the article as much as possible and learn from the experience. I plan on nominating a couple of other articles for featured status once I have a better sense of how it all works. I am quick to respond and all comments and critisims are most welcome, thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

List of plant genus names (D–K)[edit]

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

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

  • "Justus Heurnius (b. 1587), Dutch missionar and plant collectory" - I think that Y is on the end of the wrong word......
  • Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Nice work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of plant genus names (A–C)[edit]

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

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

Some shouts: John's done amazing work on this list, and did a hefty chunk of work on all our previous lists too. PawełMM of the Graphics Lab has done flawless work cropping many of these images. And many thanks to PresN for doing database and cleanup work to generate the third and fourth columns (all of which goes over my head). - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "snow berries (File:Chiococca alba16072019.jpg)" - why is there what appears to be a "bare" file name here?
  • Actually I think that' it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Ack! It's now removed. Thanks. Johnboddie (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wales national football team results 1946–1959[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The next in line for the series of Wales results lists is for the period immediately after World War II. Again, thanks to HawkAussie for helping out with the table conversion which is one of the more tedious jobs. The list follows the same structure as the previous promotions, incorporating all of the formatting features that they have picked up in previous reviews. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Leaning pass – reliabillity and formatting is good
  • The only thing I wonder if page number(s) could be given for the Oliver, Guy (1992). The Guinness Record of World Soccer ref? Aza24 (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't possess the Oliver book unfortunately, this was the existing ref that was contained on the page before I started working on them. Kosack (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
So is the information sourced without it then? If so, I would remove it. Otherwise it's unverifiable without a page number(s). Aza24 (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I added my own sources to ensure I had access to the information. I've removed the book now. Kosack (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Dayahang Rai filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked the links in the second and third columns in the table. The coding in the table seems fine. I added {{sronly|Films}} as a table caption.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to apparently reliable sources (I can't read some of them), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Poland[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 19:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Poland has 16 sites on the main list and 6 more on the tentative list. The style is standard as per several earlier FLCs. This article is on the longer side and I had to rewrite most of the descriptions since they were either copied directly from the UNESCO pages or included data that were not related to the actual WHS. In any case, I think it is ready now. The map is a bit crowded but I think the size is fine nevertheless. Lots of churches from different sites that I solved with color-coding. Tone 19:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

  • ""Białowieża Forest" is overlinked in the lead.
  • Not a direct issue with this specific nomination but a few of the linked articles have different capitalisation from that used by UNESCO. It might be a nice idea to make them align with your (and UNESCO's) usage if you feel like it? E.g. Wooden Tserkvas of Carpathian Region in Poland and Ukraine redirects to the article name where "tservkas" is not capitalised (despite it then capitalising it in the lead!!)
    • I moved the article to be consistent.
  • Blue, green and grey dots in the image, is that MOS:ACCESS compliant?
    • I've used this color schema before. I believe it is fine. Red and green have different sizes while blue and grey are not mixed as often, if I understood the guideline correctly. But I am open to suggestions, if anyone is more skilled in this.
  • The table has "voivodeship" under location, but I looked at that article and couldn't see any sign of "Lesser Poland" (for example).
  • Sortable table so e.g. "Lesser Poland" should be linked every time.
    • True, sortable, but the default shows it sorted by the years and I followed the linking there. I can link everything but then we will have a sea of blue.
  • "where the kings are buried" which "the kings"?
    • Expanded.
  • "A minor boundary modification" if this is notable, say how/why. If it's not notable, don't say it.
    • This is what the WHS states in the box. Basically, this means that either some extra area was added or that the borders were redrawn. I think it should be included as it is, as per the source.
  • Link Kraków.
  • "Wieliczka and Bochnia contain deposits of rock salt" for me a little odd phrase. Deposits of rock salt are presumably found underground in both cities, rather than the "contain"?
    • Rewritten, does this make more sense?
  • "also contain works of art, such as sculptures carved in salt and underground chapels. The mines also" also ... also.
    • Removed the second also.
  • " in 1978. In 1989," repetitive, perhaps "Eleven years later"?
    • I like that!
  • "by the humidity. " reads odd, like we have a priori knowledge of the humidity. Is there something more we can say here?
    • I assume this is clear, elementary school knowledge. Humidity + salt do not go well together. I added a comment that they installed equipment to reduce humidity.
  • "A minor boundary modification took place in 2008" see earlier.
  • "covers Auschwitz I, the base camp, Auschwitz II–Birkenau, the extermination camp, and a mass grave of inmates" potentially confusing, could be five items here to those non-experts reading, how about: "covers Auschwitz I (the base camp), Auschwitz II–Birkenau (the extermination camp), and a mass grave of inmates"?
  • European Bison -> European bison.
  • Link Warsaw.
  • "Old City of Zamość" piped to a redirect, any good reason?
  • No need to link "German" or "Castle", these are common terms.
  • Link Toruń.
  • Link Brick Gothic.
    • Linked already at Malbork but maybe better again.
  • Link Baltic area perhaps to Baltic states. I suspect a large portion of our readership won't know where that is.
  • "of Nicolaus Copernicus" I would say "of the mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus" for context.
  • Calvary: capital C or not?
    • Our article uses c, as for the type of pilgrimage site, not the Calvary in Jerusalem.
  • "site today" see WP:CURRENTLY.
    • Reworded.
  • Silesia is overlinked in the Churches of Peace entry.
  • "The six churches" similar point to the Auschwitz comment, the list has more than six "commaed" items because some are disambiguated by location, perhaps put those ones in parentheses.
  • "Brick Gothic" or "brick Gothic"?
    • Reworded.
  • " is an important early Modernist building" important according to whom or in what sense? That it's listed here probably makes that description superfluous.
  • " venue, to serve " no comma required.
  • Link Tarnowskie Góry.
  • "mine was a lead, silver, and zinc mine" mine mine.
  • "of global importance." why, according to whom?
    • Reworded.
  • Bronze Age piped to a redirect, why?
    • Fixed.
  • "show the important exchange of human values within Europe" sounds like a tourist brochure. What does this actually mean?
    • Meh, yes. Reworded. Sometimes those official descriptions are full of such descriptors.
  • "1823-1839" en-dash.
  • "Czarna Hańcza" missing diacritic.
  • Eastern Prussia -> our article calls it East Prussia.
  • "an interesting geological and " interesting according to whom? And in what way?
  • "the Pieniny Mountains " always odd wikilinking half of a formal name.
  • "offers an insight into the evolution " again brochure calling.
    • Reworded.
  • "nine ... 12" MOSNUM, all words, or numbers.
  • You linked World War I but not World War II?
    • Now also linked.
  • Link Duszniki-Zdrój.
  • "mill still maintains the production of" needs an "as of 2020" and this could be "mill still produces".
    • Reworded.
  • "Old City of Zamość" is a redirect in the WHS in Poland template.

That's it for a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

      • @The Rambling Man: I'm through. There are some open points where I'd like to see what you think, other things I have fixed. --Tone 16:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • Formatting is consistent
  • Not convinced is a reliable source, I would recommend switching it out
  • Reliabillity is good otherwise Aza24 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Aza24: I removed the reference, it was not in the UNESCO source anyway. --Tone 16:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Benicio del Toro[edit]

Nominator(s): --Leo Mercury (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here with another list of awards and nominations, this time about Puerto Rican actor Benicio del Toro. I think the article looks pretty great, but there are probably some mistakes that I missed. --Leo Mercury (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Will do this soon. Also if the list is supposed to be alphabetical, "Berlin International Film Festival Awards" should be above the British one. Aza24 (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Vampire: The Masquerade books[edit]

Nominator(s): AlexandraIDV 12:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

  • Given that you already mentioned WWP in paragraph 2, I would move the present paragraph 3 above that paragraph
  • Surely "The Players Guide" is actually called either "The Player's Guide" or "The Players' Guide"? Same for "The Storytellers Handbook", "The Players Guide to the Sabbat" and some others
  • That's all I got on a first pass...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Fair, I've gone back and forth on what the best way to organize the lead would be, and followed your suggestion.
    • I had the same reaction as you, but bafflingly, they really are called "The Players Guide" etc without any apostrophes - see for example these cover scans: [1], [2].--AlexandraIDV 20:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your review!--AlexandraIDV 22:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Looked through the text and found nothing that appeared to fail any of the FL criteria. And I'm friends with Alexandra so I took care to try to find things wrong with it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Odonata species of Slovenia[edit]

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

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

Comments Support from N Oneemuss[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine in the table and below, where I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. Note: I skipped my usual copyediting in the lead. The coding in the table seems fine. I added {{sronly|Damselflies (Zygoptera)}} and {{sronly|Dragonflies (Anisoptera)}} as table captions. Table captions are now required by a recent RFC; the "sronly" means that they will only be visible to screen readers.
  • 2. The lead defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to apparently reliable sources (I can't read some of them), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. The images are excellent. (Your approach reminds me of the approach I took in my lists, which you might enjoy reviewing.)
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support (but note that I haven't copyedited the main text). Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

List of plant genus names (L–P)[edit]

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

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

  • Support Looks good to me. ~ HAL333([3]) 23:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I got nothing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

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

List of Kim Hee-chul performances[edit]

Nominator(s): Mshb73 (talk)Lulusword (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Kim Hee-chul is a South Korean entertainer, originally known for his singing career but recently has been recognised for his role in variety shows. Seven of his television shows are currently airing. As actor, he had acted in a few television shows and music videos. He also had dabbled in directing and screenwriting music videos. The article is maintained by Mshb73, and I've only been editing it since last month to help with the lead, references and formatting since I've managed to get another article to FL before. Lulusword (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

  • All images should have a brief piece of alt text attached
  • Alvin and the Chipmunks should link to Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) (it does not currently in the lead)
  • We should say "the South Korean dub of Alvin..." rather than "the South Korean version", as the latter could be interpreted as a South Korean remake of the film
  • The image captions that are complete sentences (the ones for the three pictures under "Music videos") should have a period at the end; the three images of Kim have sentence fragments as captions and are already fine
  • Even with the footnote for "avatar blind date", the concept is unclear to me - what do you mean when you say that a person is controlled by someone else?
  • Speaking of - "Avatar blind date" refers to a situation in which the person who attended a date should be in present tense, correct?
  • who takes part in Im entertaining antics and infectious dance. - I believe "Im" should be "Im's" here. Additionally, characterizing this as "entertaining antics and infectious dance" is non-neutral - rewrite without inserting opinions in Wikipedia's voice.
  • that he can only see in his television screen. - "who he can only see on television."
  • The music video presented LGBT issues - I believe this should be in present tense
  • "mentally retarded" is considered an offensive term in modern English - switch to "developmentally disabled"

Please @ me when you have addressed the above, and I will take a second look. --AlexandraIDV 13:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Alexandra IDV, Avatar blind date is sort of like a prank date, where a good looking man/woman (the avatar) went to the date in lieu of another person (the controller). The avatar will wear an earpiece and listen to instructions from the controller such as "tell her she looks pretty" or "ask her what's her favourite movie" etc. The goal is for the controller to essentially "go on a date" without having to show his face, and then reveal himself at the end of the date(s) if it/they went well. In the original version from the variety show, all participants know about it beforehand but in the music video, the woman lead have no idea. In the music video, the avatar (Kim Hee-chul) fall in love with the woman lead for real and decided to go out with her as himself in the end instead of being an avatar of another person. I honestly have no idea how to fit this whole explanation in the footnote haha. Other issues you pointed out had been addressed. :) Lulusword (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Lulusword: Thank you, I've confirmed that the changes are implemented. Regarding the avatar date, I think something like In an "avatar blind date", one person attending is receiving instructions for how to act through an earpiece. might work.--AlexandraIDV 18:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it is also good to list his Youtube appearances. (for instance on Jessi's channel, and his new youtube show on studio lululala) DueltodeathUser talk:Dueltodeath 14:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dueltodeath Hi, heechul appeared in Jessi's channel as guest. About his new youtube show on studio lululala, i can't find reference. Mshb73 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it's a new show with April's Naeun and Kim Poong. You can find it if you search Studio Lululala on youtube. Dueltodeath (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I watched his new show on YouTube. I think YouTube isn't acceptable sources. Mshb73 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should't write "Mystery 6" and "Super Junior Mini-Drama" bc both of them are variety show and he was cameo. If they were drama we could include them. and i add his new show "School Meal". It was "Bangkok Chorus" -> "Stay-At-Home Chorus". and he was Contestant in "Immortal Songs: Singing the Legend" ep. 6.

Hello, I added the references for Immortal Songs but there isn't any news article about School Meal so it is non-notable. If there are any in the future, I will add it back. Lulusword (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I search about "Mystery 6" and "Super Junior Mini-Drama". "Mystery 6" is horror mockumentary so i'm not so sure about it. But "Super Junior Mini-Drama" was a variety game show and Heechul was a cameo so i think we should remove it from his list. Mshb73 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
He did appear in Mystery 6 although it is just a small part, so that should be listed, and I watched Super Junior Mini-Drama a bit, and see that he is only introduce in the opening credits so it can be removed, I guess. It's up to you, really, since you are more familiar with his work. Lulusword (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I removed Super Junior Mini-Drama from the list. Mshb73 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Lulusword Ok. Thanks.

@Lulusword I find this reference for Catering Restaurant (2020). -> ( Mshb73 (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. It looks like a blog post to me, so it's not a reliable source. Lulusword (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm the only one who thinks it's so weird that no source can be found?!!! Mshb73 (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Billie Eilish[edit]

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria. I used reliable sources and used List of songs recorded by Katy Perry, List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift and List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor as references when creating the article. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


ChrisTheDude, how does it look now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"&Burn" and "8" appear to now be back to sorting based on the character "&" and the digit "8".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, I just went ahead and removed "&" and "8" from the column table. 20:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I still think "&Burn", "8" and possibly "!!!!!!!" are in the wrong places in the table. I believe that "&Burn" should be placed after "All the Good Girls Go to Hell" and set to sort as if it starts with A (but still shown in the table as "&Burn") . "8" should be placed after "Copycat" and set to sort as if it starts with E (but still shown in the table as "8"). Not sure about "!!!!!!!" - how do you actually say that title out loud......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Since this is a list of songs recorded by Billie Eilish, is a column for "Artist(s)" necessary? For songs with other artists (only three), maybe include as a note after the song title: "Lovely" (with Khalid). Also, maybe highlight the song entry with a different color if this is an important point.
  • Why not have the sort function for the "Writer(s)" column? I find it useful to see all the songs written by others or a particular writer grouped together. Also, as done for writers in album track listings, it would look less busy to write out the full name at the first occurrence, then just use the last ("Billie Eilish O'Connell" may be her legal name, but for this list "Eilish" may be clearer, especially since the names are stacked vertically, at least on my display).
  • Why is it necessary to highlight "Non-album single" in the "Album" column? It's unclear that these entries need to be further distinguished from the album entries.

Ojorojo (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

List of amphibians of Texas[edit]

Nominator(s): HAL333 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Branching out a little bit, here is my first attempt at a biological list. The most interesting part of this list is probably the salamanders that are only found in Texas Hill Country, and sometimes only in specific cave systems. ~ HAL333([4]) 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  • "Once found througout" - typo
  • "Rhinophrynus is a burrowing ant and termite eater, hence the common name "burrowing frogs"" - I would say "burrowing frog" singular, as it covers only one species
  • "These large salamanders are often mistaken as eels" - can I check that this is US English? Over here we would say mistaken for something, but maybe this is valid US usage
  • "hence the colloquial name "Conger Eels"" - don't think the C and E should be lower case
  • "Salamandrids typically have patterns of bright and contrasting colours" - presume this article is intended to be written in US English, so the last word should not have a U
  • Rio Grande lesser siren has no status, just an orange cell?
Texas lists it as an endangered species within the state, but it's a subspecies, and a contested one at that. And the IUCN doesn't give it a rating. ~ HAL333([5]) 20:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Think that's it from me, great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done ~ HAL333([6]) 20:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Medusa
  • Order Anura links to a disambiguation page
  • the monotypic Rhinophrynus → italic Rhinophrynus?
  • fore limbs → forelimbs
  • Images have no alt text
  • Note that I am not an expert on this topic. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments from PresN

Ah, heard so much talk and complaining about the Barton Springs salamander (and other members of Eurycea) growing up in Austin, nice to see it.

  • Bolding in the first sentence is unnecessary; doubly so since it's not even the actual title of the article.
  • I find calling out specific species in the lead by their scientific name but not their common name reads oddly.
  • "Eleven amphibian species have been designated as threatened within the state" - by who? Also, citations should go after punctuation marks at least, if not always to the end of the sentence, not just stuck after clauses
  • The red/orange highlighting on cells violates WP:ACCESS- if you're colorblind or are using a screen reader, that information isn't present. You'll need to find some text-based way of indicating that information, either instead of or in addition to the colors.
  • Speaking of WP:ACCESS, the white text on light blue for families is hard to read as a fully-sighted reader; I can't imagine it's easy with poor vision.
  • You have some inconsistencies in capitalization for common names, e.g. "Greenhouse frog" instead of "greenhouse frog". That said, it looks strange to have the mixed capitals to start with with place names vs non; you may consider just always capitalizing the first letter since it's a standalone name
  • For almost the entire list each row is a species, but for Siren intermedia you do subspecies; presumably because Texas calls out one subspecies as threatened. You should be consistent, and if there's an issue like that add have a note, not change the structure of the article. That would clear up the empty status cell, which should be an NE (not evaluated) otherwise
Okay - that was one of the things that I was confused about. I wasn't sure if I could list it as NE since the IUCN doesn't have a page on it. ~ HAL333([8]) 05:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider widening the common name column a hair at the expense of the status or distribution columns so that it doesn't wrap to two+ lines so much
  • You link the common name of each species to the scientific name, which redirects to the common name- it's on purpose, but I don't know why.
I was replicating what the FL List of amphibians of Bulgaria did. I was halfway through when it occurred to me that it was redundant. ~ HAL333([9]) 05:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Note A is awkwardly formatted; you should either have each status on its own line or drop the colored blocks and just list the statuses out in prose
I'm sorry - I don't catch your drift. What would "each status on its own line" look like... ~ HAL333([10]) 07:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I just had an idea. Would moving the content from note a to the top, like the table with Texas statuses, work? ~ HAL333([11]) 02:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
PresN Sorry for the ping, but do you know how I could resolve this? ~ HAL333([12]) 00:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
It's resolved, see my edit on October 19. --PresN 17:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You have a section named "Notes and references" subdivided into Notes and... Citations. It should be References- the citation is the in-line bit, the reference is the full work description in this section.
Green tickYI corrected that, but would that be acceptable in a biographical article where the citations section refers to a "Works cited" section below? ~ HAL333([13]) 23:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's apparently AmphibiaWeb, not Amphibiaweb
  • "Texas parks & Wildlife Department" - parks
  • Be consistent in linking publishers in refs- IUCN gets linked, so the rest should too-United States Geological Survey, etc.
  • IUCN refs all need dois- they're listed on each IUCN page at the top (e.g. "|doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T41630A45210528.en")
  • It's standard in journal cites to use first initial instead of first name- you do so usually, but some of the IUCN cites you're using full name
That was another thing that I was confused about. Sometimes the IUCN gave the full name but other times it just gave the intial. ~ HAL333([14]) 16:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 173 (Animal Diversity Web) is missing the author
  • Super-minor: {{cite iucn}} is a helper template for {{cite journal}}; as a result, you don't need to add archive-urls to it because you're citing a "journal" that has a website archive, rather than citing a transient website. It's a minor difference, and I wouldn't take the time to change it, but for future lists just know you don't need to add the archive.
  • Also minor: if you have an archive for a live page, add |url-status=live to the cite so that the live page is the first link, instead of the very slow archive link.

--PresN 03:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hopefully, I have addressed most of your concerns. I'm a little confused on the the recommendation about changing the statuses. I'm also having some trouble with the coding in ref 129. ~ HAL333([15]) 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the tables seems fine. Some sentences need periods, such as "Although there are several poulations throughout the southeast US, this species is only known in Texas from a single specimen collect in Nacogdoches County in 1940"; there are judgment calls to make here, because you're trying to avoid periods when possible, but sometimes avoiding them won't work.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review

  • The references are all to high-quality reliable sources.
  • One formatting nit-pick I have is that the title of ref 7 should have an en dash instead of the present hyphen for style purposes. That's the only issue I was able to find with the formatting.
  • The link-checker tool (and my manual check) shows that the Herps of Texas EL is dead. You should either find an updated link, add an archived version of the link or just remove it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 Done ~ HAL333 19:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

List of heists in the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a list of heists in the UK notable for having taken a total sum of £1 million or more in cash or goods (at contemporary rates). It includes a golden toilet and a painting which has been stolen four times. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. It's my first such nomination. Mujinga (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • The sorting on the "original value" column doesn't work, it treats £10605 as larger than £291.9 million..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • good spot! i'll look into that Mujinga (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • fixed using "data-sort-value" Mujinga (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of including the images in the table. They are inconsistently applied – some rows show the object that was stolen, others show the location of the heist, and some have no images at all. The images also make rows unnecessarily tall, reducing how many rows can be displayed at once (especially on mobile). I would suggest removing this column and adjusting the width of the table to show a few of the more significant images along the right side (see the FL Caldecott Medal for an example).
  • The explanatory note is not formatted very well. Normally, the reader should be able to hover over the footnote marker in the table and have the full details appear like so[a], but this does not happen because the footnote is just a and does not include the full text (Contemporary values for heists...). My suggestion would be to rewrite the footnote using {{efn}} or something similar.
  • Make the dates consistent in references – most appear to use full day-month-year format (i.e. 31 October 2020), but some use yyyy-mm-dd (i.e. 2020-10-31). The first format is more common within the list currently and should probably be applied everywhere.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ The text now appears next to the marker unless the footnote is already visible on screen, in which case it highlights the footnote.
Hi RunningTiger123 thanks for the comments. I've taken the images out of the table and put some alongside the table as you suggested. I've tried alt formats for the explanatory note but having the link to the template in the note itself seems to break things. That's unfortunate since mentioning the template is basically the point of the note so then I'd rather keep it as it is. Dates are now consistent. Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That's okay – I was able to go in and change the footnote myself, so it should work better now. My only other comment is that the captions for the new pictures should say recovered in [year] instead of just recovered [year]. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah what sorcery is this!? I'm sure I tried doing that and it broke the table, no doubt I was doing something wrong. I'm very happy it works now, thanks! I was wondering what other people would say about "recovered" / "recovered in" and ChrisTheDude mentioned it below, so that's changed too. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Support (pending changes listed below). RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Coastal Carolina Chanticleers head football coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have created the article and, while admittedly short, it is comprehensive in the history of Coastal Carolina head football coaches and has a lead that is well-sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Please note, I don't know anything about college football being British and a fan of proper association football ;-)
    You may have an argument with "proper", I've never heard a foul called for "giving him the business" in soccer.
  • In the first sentence you only refer to "The Coastal Carolina college football team" and then introduce the "Chanticleers" name in the second sentence without any context. To avoid this, and potential sea of blue concerns, I would reword the first two sentences as "The Coastal Carolina Chanticleers represent Coastal Carolina University in college football. The team competes in the East Division of the Sun Belt Conference, part of the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision."
    Fixed: I worded it slightly differently than your suggestion, with the only difference being "The Coastal Carolina Chanticleers football team represents..."
  • Numbers lower than 10 (in this case 3) should be written out as words
  • "since it began play during the 2003 season" - surely the team began play at the start of the 2003 season, not during it (which implies midway through)?
    Fixed: changed to "since it began play in 2003"; if you think something like "since it began play for the 2003 season" would sound better I can change it to that, but I think my change conveys the meaning and cuts down on some unnecessary wordiness.
  • "the team has played 204 games over 16 seasons" - 2003 to 2019 inclusive is 17 seasons, surely?
    Fixed: it is indeed. My math failed me here somehow.
  • "Coastal Carolina has not yet made [singular] ....... but they [plural] made....."
    Fixed: changed "they" to "it".
  • "he hadn't held" => "had not held"
  • Note 1 - how is this relevant?
    Comment: notes 1–4 are part of Template:List of college football program head coaches key, so they appear the same on all of the "List of SCHOOL head football coaches" articles regardless of when each program was founded. If you think switching the template for an identical wikitable without the notes would be appropriate for this article I can make that change.
  • Most of note 2 also doesn't seem relevant.
    Comment: see comment above.
  • Note 5 - "Statistics correct as of the end of the 2019–20 college football season." this is not a complete sentence, so should not have a full stop.
    Fixed: changed to complete sentence and retained the full stop.
  • Two of the refs show the full website address i.e. with the www and .edu/.com, but no others are written like this. To be consistent with the others, I would show the actual name of the publisher.
    Fixed: → Coastal Carolina University and → Sports Illustrated.
  • Date formats in the refs are not consistent - some are month first, some are day first. As this is a US subject, month first should be used throughout.
    Fixed: moved all dates to mdy format.
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    ChrisTheDude, thank you for taking the time to review the article! I appreciate the feedback and my responses can be seen above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I suppose the notes in the template aren't really a big deal. BTW we have had plenty of crazy referee calls in the round-ball game too :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OpposeCriterion 3c. Sorry, but this three-item list could easily be placed into the main Coastal Carolina Chanticleers football article, and I don't consider it to be long enough to justify splitting it into its own article. Therefore, I think the article fails to meet that part of the FL standards, so I feel forced to oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    I would agree... oppose Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur with Giants2008. I regretfully oppose this nomination. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Sushmita Sen filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 09:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of Sushmita Sen's extensive career in the Hindi film industry. I expect constructive comments from the reviewers. All helpful comments on improvement are welcome... 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 09:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

25 Cents FC, I really wish you submit articles for copyediting at the GOCE before nominating them since prose is not your strong point. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792 I think you are right mate. Will do it henceforth.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 12:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile Kailash29792 improvement suggestions please ?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 04:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
It's just prose and table-related. You get someone to re-edit the lead section, and I'll improve the table later today. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I gave an attempt to solve it by myself. Let me know if it's okay or still has issue.
Comments from Cowlibob
  • The reason the prose looks so patchy is that significant portions of the lead is directly copied from the sources. See Earwig's result here: [[16]]. The lead needs to be carefully rewritten as it currently contains a lot of plagiarism.
  • I will have to Oppose at this time as that is a very serious issue. Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Will work on it. Give me some time.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 09:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Cowlibob: I have tried my best to copy edit the list. Please check and revert. Would be helpful if you could help a little. As you must have noticed film related articles are not my strong point.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 12:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Cowlibob: @Kailash29792: Awaiting for your responses.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 14:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments on the re-written lead
  • "Sen made her screen debut in 1996 with thriller Dastak" => "Sen made her screen debut in 1996 with the thriller Dastak"
  • "In 1999, Sen accepted a supporting role in David Dhawan's comedy-drama Biwi No.1, the movie received" - "the movie" should be the start of a new sentence
  • "the second highest-grossing movie of 1999" - among all Hindi films? Among all films in India? Among all films in the world?
  • "Releasing just months after Biwi No.1" => "Released just months after Biwi No.1"
  • "The film earned Sen critical appreciation, while making it financially successful" => "The film earned Sen critical appreciation and was financially successful"
  • "for her performance in the song "Dilbar Dilbar"" => "for her performance of the song "Dilbar Dilbar""
  • "Sen made a special appearance in a song Mehboob Mere" - song title should be in quote marks, not italics. Also, what does this actually mean? She her only appearance in the film was to perform this song?
Yes. She was not a part of the movie rather appeared in that song.
  • "a movie made on the concept of surrogacy" => "a film on the theme of surrogacy"
  • " In 2003, Sen played the role of ACP Malvika Chauhan in thriller Samay: When Time Strikes" => " In 2003, Sen played the role of ACP Malvika Chauhan in the thriller Samay: When Time Strikes"
  • "which was the fifth highest-grossing film in the year 2002" - see comment above about 1999
  • "Inspired by a famous French play" - I would remove the word famous, it is a bit NPOV and a brief Google search doesn't suggest the play is actually particularly famous anyway.......
  • "it emerged as the fifth-highest-grossing film of the year" - clarify again. Also, I notice this is linked to List of Bollywood films of 2005#Top_grossing_films - is there an equivalent list to link to for 1999 and 2002?
  • "In the same year Sen acted in the drama Main Aisa Hi Hoon, a remake"
  • "Movies where Sen played the protagonist in Kalpana Lajmi’s Chingaari (2006) and Tanuja Chandra’s Zindaggi Rocks (2006) performed badly at the box office" => "Kalpana Lajmi’s Chingaari (2006) and Tanuja Chandra’s Zindaggi Rocks (2006), in which Sen played the protagonist, performed badly at the box office"
  • "Sen subsequently suffered a brief setback in her career as she starred in a series of films that performed poorly at the box office" - you just mentioned that her 2006 films did badly at the box office, so if the same thing happened the following year then it wasn't a "subsequent setback", it was a continuation of one which had started the year before
Consequently ??
I think the whole thing needs rewording. You say it was a "brief" setback, but it apparently lasted for four years, which definitely isn't brief. You also use almost identical wording twice ("performed badly at the box office"/"performed poorly at the box office"). I would say "Over the next four years she starred in a series of films, including action drama Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag (2007), romantic drama Karma Aur Holi (2009), romantic comedy Dulha Mil Gaya (2010) and action comedy No Problem (2010), which were commercially unsuccessful and failed to impress audiences" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "After staying away from films for five years, Sen appeared in English-Bengali bilingual film It Was Raining That Night in 2005" - this makes no sense. You talk about films she starred in from 2006 to 2010, and then you suddenly jump back to 2005 (??) and say it was her first film for five years, which clearly isn't true.
Fixed Sorry for the goof up. I actually wanted to write about her first Bengali film but forget to make a change.
  • "In 2019, Sen made her debut in web television. She featured in Aarya" - the table says 2020, not 2019 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Fixed 2020 it is.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 13:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • Youtube is not really a reliable source, especially when others exist. Would it be possible to find a different source ref 42 and 12?
  • ref 3 is the "economic times" not the "entertainment times"?
  • ref 14 missing author (Shomini Shen I think)
To be honest with you, I get so confused between ref's WORK and PUBLISHER thing. Do not understand if they are same or different. Some ref for example Times of India have subsidiary like Entertainment times as a result, I put Times of India as a publisher. The New Indian Express or Hindustan Times doesn't have, so I mentioned them under WORK. I am not sure if I should link WORK / PUBLISHER or both.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 16:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Aza24: Awaiting your response--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 12:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • formatting and reliability looks good, other than these things Aza24 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I completely understand your confusion, it is a little odd. Basically every news source has a work and publisher. The work is just what ever the newspaper is, like the The Indian Express or The Times of India and the publishers would be Indian Express Limited and The Times Group respectively. I believe the Hindustani Times is published by HT Media and the New Indian Express by Express Publications (Madurai) Limited D, but sometimes they're not explicitly clear. When the work and publisher have extremely similar names, like The New York Times that's published by the The New York Times company, you only need to list the work. I won't be picky here as the formatting is fine how it is now, pass for source review.
Thanks a lot for clearing confusion I had. All sorted.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 04:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies[edit]

Nominator(s): History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a massive, comprehensive, well-written, fully-sourced and up-to-date list of all the original, high-end production, television films and movie series from Hallmark Channel (HC) and its sister channel Hallmark Movies & Mysteries (HMM). I would also like to add that this list has been continuously edited and built for 10 years now, and has had almost 100,000 page views in just the past month. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • There's a heck of a lot of references, but what is sourcing all the "by year" data from 2000 to 2011? None of that has any refs at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment Chris. If you take a closer look you'll see that the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 seasons DO have references in their sections (plus other sections). 2001 and 2004's are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively), 2003's in the 'Franchise series' section. 2005's in the 'Umbrella series' and 'Franchise series' sections. 2010's in the 'Seasonal programming' section. The list is only missing references for 2000, 2002 and 2011, which should be easy to find. Also, a reminder that the 2000-2014 period produced far less titles than the 2015-2020. No list is perfect, but this one is pretty good. And of course, improvements and polishing are always needed in this list as in all lists. Cheers, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 22:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You say "2001[...]'s are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively)", and that part is certainly true, but what ref covers the fact that "Snow White: The Fairiest Them All" (which, by the way, seems to be spelt incorrectly) was broadcast on October 28, 2001, for example? And given that you've mentioned there that the channel launched in 2001, how can there be nine films listed for 2000 if the channel hadn't started broadcasting? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again for your input Chris :) I have addressed your above concerns as best as possible, plus I added refs to all the years/seasons that had none (see my changes here). I certainly agree that the 2000-2011 period could include more sources, but all its sub-sections now have at least one or two refs, and again, this is the earlier period that had much fewer movies in it than the latter period when they flourished. Cheers, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but saying that all sections "have at least one or two refs" isn't really going to cut it at FLC. An FLC is expected to have everything reliably sourced. As it stands, the section on 2005, for example, only cites the existence of one out of 32 films, so regretfully I'm going to have to oppose due to lack of sourcing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
With almost 600 unique references, I hardly think there is "a lack of sourcing" in this massive list. You seem to be asking for a perfect list, and that is unreasonable. I also don't understand why you are so quick to oppose, when you could offer more guidance, solutions, and specifics. If you care about the FLC project I kindly ask you to withhold your vote and allow more time to address its imperfections. The rules/guidelines even indicate that nominations can have up to 1 month to resolve issues. Are you seriously going to deny this nomination the time that everybody else here is getting? Please take into consideration that this list includes almost 1,000 unique film titles. The editors involved in the making of this list did great work and I support them 100%. Thanks, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 21:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I will be more than happy to withdraw my oppose !vote if the issues with the article are resolved (and many nominations stay open for a lot longer than a month, so there's plenty of time). In the case of this list, though, there's just so much uncited content that I think it will be a huge task to bring it up to FL standard within a reasonable timeframe....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose – There's a lot of issues with this list in its current state.

  • I'm inclined to agree with ChrisTheDude about this article. The sources are very weak and certainly not up to the standards of a featured list. Many movies are missing sources completely, so how do we know they are real in any way? Other movies have a source, but only for the ratings; this does not help to verify the other information in the table, such as DVD availability. Some sources consist of only a link with no formatting instead of a proper citation. As you pointed out, this has a lot of sources, but it's a long list, so it still needs more.
  • The accessibility needs improvement. Per featured list criteria 4, there should be table sort functions for the movie titles, casts, and directors.
  • The formatting should be more consistent; I think the early years also need to be put into a table. Moreover, every movie should have the same information, so if you're going to include the cast and director, you should do that for every movie.
  • Finally, I'm hesitant to make this a featured list even if its formatting is improved solely because it will be significantly updated on a fairly regular basis (at the rate Hallmark makes movies, there would be dozens of movies each year that have to be added with the same level of formatting).

Here's what I would recommend. As this currently stands, the articles is over 400 kB – much too long to be comfortably navigated. I think the list should be broken up by year or into increments of several years (I think 5-year increments would work fairly nicely – so 2000-2004, 2005-2009, etc.). Then, each list would be much easier to manage, and years with plenty of sources would not be held back by years with little to no sources. This would also ensure that past years are included in a stable, unchanging list. I'm not going to propose a split myself, but it's something I think you should consider instead of trying to get this entire list to FL status. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much ChrisTheDude and RunningTiger123 for your interest in this nomination and for taking the time to comment. Let me begin by saying that I (and hopefully other editors willing to help get this list up to FL standards) will try to address as many of the aforementioned points as we can, and as best as we can. But we also need as much time as you are able to give to this nom, given the massive size of the list. I would also like to kindly reiterate that we must all be *realistic*. If we add layer upon layer of requirements to a FLC, tantamount to those expected of the main page's Today's Featured List (TFL), then we will end up with little to no Featured Lists at all, as well as many discouraged editors abandoning their overall participation in the improvement of lists. Ok, that being said here is my latest Update:
I have now added 200+ new unique references (the list's total of unique refs is now 800+). Almost all of the (40) tables in the list are now 100% sourced, with the exception of (6) that are at about 75% sourced, and (2) that are minimally sourced because these are the harder-to-find pre-Hallmark Channel years. Additionally, according to InternetArchiveBot's most recent scan, requested yesterday, (0) dead links were found in this list (See: here). Several AutoWikiBrowser scans have also found no problems with the list. Cordially, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 04:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It's really good to see that you're adding sources to the page; from past experience, I know how hard it can be to find old information like this for lists. That being said, the comments that have been made are not adding "layer upon layer of requirements" to an FLC (at least, I certainly think that's the case; I won't speak for ChrisTheDude). Per WP:FLCR: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, so if a list is to be promoted, it needs to live up to that standard to the fullest by having sources throughout – not just for most items, but for every item. We cannot change the requirements to be "realistic", as that sets a bad precedent and threatens to degrade the quality of future FLs. I'd also like to clarify that there are no additional requirements to be featured at TFL because anything that TFL chooses to display is already vetted by going through the FL nomination process. Again, though, your progress is really encouraging and is putting this list on the right track. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
RunningTiger123, I agree, and I don't see anything in what I typed above which seemed unreasonable or unrealistic. At the point when I initially commented, whole sections of the article had literally no references at all, and suggesting that these needed to be added is not adding "layer upon layer of requirements", it's simply stating what is expected of any FL. The nominator's response suggested (and apologies if I misrepresent) that he/she felt that because this is such a long list, referencing only some of the content ought to be sufficient for promotion, and that has simply never been true........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I also think you might be on to something with your suggestion that this monumental list be broken up into articles for different ranges of years, along the lines of, say, Category:England national football team results -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

AIFF Player of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): Drat8sub (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've improved the article significantly with all required information, citations and structure and from previous experiences of nominations I've taken care of small details carefully. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria per WP:WIAFL and has a scope of getting FL status. I welcome to all comments and suggestions regarding this nomination. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • There's some inconsistent formatting between websites: vs Indian Super League (why not
Consistency should be between same website, not different, i.e, if once put, then another one should not be AIFF. But it can be IndianSuperLeague and it should be consistent for all IndianSuperLeague citations.
No, not every time, once is enough.
  • date missing for ref 4
  • ref 5 missing website and author
  • date for ref 7
  • refs 6 and 10 have website/publisher formatted differently when they're the same
  • ref 12 missing date and author
  • why is the Times Now Network in ref 13 but not ref 3?
because agencies are different, one is PTI, another is TNN
  • ref 16 missing date
  • Reliability is good. Glanced through for some brief spot checks. Aza24 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, fixed. Other points are addressed above. Drat8sub (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Drat8sub, the reason I brought up these things is because they're inconsistent, I don't know why you bother disagreeing about something that takes 5 seconds, it wastes everyone's time. The reason we link publishers is so a user can hover over a ref and see the link, no reader goes to the actual references section so linking every time makes sense – either way, the only reason I brought it up is because you linked India today in refs 8 and 9 but not the others... I have gone ahead and linked them. If you're going to use the website parameter you should use it consistently, otherwise change it to publisher. Once again, this fix would take literally 5 seconds, I have implemented it... feel free to change back to "Indian Super League" is you're going to change to the "website=" to "publisher=". Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
It's ok, I'm not changing. I believe in linking once as hardly anyone open link from the reflist and above that it's very short reflist. Drat8sub (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds is a Canadian actor known for his work in television shows such as Two Guys and a Girl, romantic comedies such as The Proposal and his title role in the Deadpool film franchise. As always I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support ~ HAL333([18]) 11:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this nom as it passes all the criteria for Featured-Article status. Horacio Vara (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  • ref 78 isn't in a citation template like the others so is missing work, author, date and retrieval date; you may want to archive it as well
  • ref 63 missing author
  • Publishers/works are linked in the first mentions, which is fine
  • Inclusion of works/authors/titles looks good otherwise
  • The only reliability issue I spotted was a youtube link, but it seems to be in addition to another ref so no issue there imo
  • I'll pass when the first and second points are addressed. Aza24 (talk)
@Aza24: Thanks for the source review. I've fixed the above. Needed to update a few entries. The YouTube link is from the official SNL channel so should be ok. Cowlibob (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah looks good. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Pomona College people[edit]

Nominator(s): {{u|Sdkb}}talk 10:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Very solid work. Had trouble finding anything. ~ HAL333([19]) 21:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: I've added a source for the Howard caption.
Regarding a category in the see also section, that was present at the Dartmouth FL, but I'm not entirely sure if there's a solid precedent for it. I'm inclined to think it's okay because categories are supposed to be reader-facing pages (evidenced by the help page for them and the practice of marking non-content categories with {{Maintenance category}}; the line does get blurred, though). The usefulness is that the category has a wider scope, including e.g. trustees and alumni that I didn't judge notable enough to add here. I'm not an expert in categories, so someone more knowledgeable might be able to weigh in, or we could ask at the categories WikiProject. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support If I had to take a guess myself, I think including the category link should be fine. Interested to see what other reviewers think. ~ HAL333([20]) 22:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

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

  • ref 4 missing retrieval date
  • Assuming "pomona college" should be italicized for refs 6–7 – actually when refs are from Pomona College but not the magazine, Pomona College is the publisher not the work so should not be italicized
  • Usually we take the "www." out of website names
  • also pomona college is linked in ref 6 but not the other times
  • ref 20 shouldn't be in all caps – a MOS thing
  • Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources (refs 49, 28, 148) I guess 100 is OK since it's the blog of the subject
  • Linkedin is not a reliable source – refs 38, 78, 173, 185
  • Got to 105, will do more soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Aza24: Thanks for beginning the source review! Responding in order:
  • Ref 4 looks like it has a retrieval date to me; could you clarify?
  • Done. I de-italicized Pomona in all the refs, by swapping out |work=Pomona College and |website=Pomona College for |publisher=Pomona College.
  • Done. www's removed.
  • Done. Pomona de-linked in ref 6.
  • Done. Ref 20 switched to title case.
  • I swapped out refs 28 and 49. For ref 148, it's the only open-access place I could find Virginia Prince's year of graduation. I've applied to get access to Taylor & Francis through the Wikipedia Library to try to get access to this journal article, which will hopefully have it. If it doesn't, the place it would be would be this biography book (unfortunately not available online), but I have no clue how I'd get access to that.
  • I'm using the LinkedIn citations solely to establish graduation year for people where it is not otherwise available online. My understanding is that this is acceptable per the criteria at WP:ABOUTSELF. Each of those entries contains a separate citation supporting the notability.
Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Update: Thanks to the wizards at the reference desk, now done for Virginia Prince as well. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the initiative (and ping) with 148, LinkedIn seems fine under that pretense, no idea what I meant about ref 4 :) Looking through the rest now, sorry for the delay. Aza24 (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Next batch:

  • Really not sure about the reliability of ref 108
  • ref 109 missing author
  • some issues with 129/130 – missing publisher/work/website (or some cobination of them) missing retrieval dates and when I go to the source it says "Your connection is not private, hackers may be trying to steal your passport" lol so...?
  • 119,120, 123 missing retrieval date
  • 124 missing a publisher, work or website parameter
  • "State of California" as publisher for ref 131?
  • retrieval dates for basically all of the "Biographical Directory of Federal Judges" ones
  • Whats the deal with all the mixed "citation"/"cite web" templates?
  • 203 needs publisher and ISBN (978-0-9794984-0-4 I think)
  • retrieval dates for ref 275, 277, 287, 293, 314, 315 retrieval date
  • 313 needs an identifier of some kind (world cat has an oclc)
  • Reliability looks fine over all
  • Completely optional but I would recommend running the internet archive bot as lists like these with hundreds of varying web sources often fall victim to dead links. If you don't want to run it I would be happy to myself, just let me know. Aza24 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@Aza24: Replying in order:
  • Done. I replaced ref 108 with two more reliable refs (both to museums).
  • Done. Author added to ref 109 (now ref 110).
  • Done. It looks like there was some sort of expired security certificate—it let you through if you checked the "trust this website" box, but that's not ideal. I updated the URLs, which should hopefully fix the issue, and filled out the retrieval dates.
  • Done. Retrieval dates added to the {{CongBio}} references.
  • Done. United States Senate Committee on Finance added as publisher.
  • Done. State of California added as publisher.
  • Done. Okay, this one was more of a challenge than expected. These references all use {{FJC Bio}}, which unlike the CongBio template isn't a nice wrapper of a standard citation template, but rather an ancient custom-built mess that had already sent me diving into the source code of the FJC website just to retrieve the IDs. It didn't have any |access-date= parameter available. So I added one, which has gotten the display here working correctly, but it's pretty hacked-together (it only respects the {{use mdy dates}} setting because of an additional |date-format= parameter which I also added). I'm still sticking to using it, since I believe in centralizing, but that template is, uh, definitely not passing the hypothetical WP:Featured template candidates anytime soon.
  • Done. The {{Citation}} uses were all relics added to this page before I started working on it. I changed them all to the more specific variants, which has fixed the CS1 vs. CS2 comma inconsistency issue.
  • Done. So this was another rabbit hole. The ISBN looks to be for the third edition of the book, but that edition (and maybe the others) looks self-published, so I went searching for a different source for Mill's 1945 graduation date to replace it. Once I figured out her maiden name (absent from her actual page; will fix that soon), I found an article from 1947 describing her as a current student. Ack. With a little more digging, the alumni magazine has her as class of 1948 based on a class note here, so I changed it to that and added the magazine as the replacement reference (the L.A. Times one still works for her notability description).
  • Done. 314 (now 315) doesn't have a retrieval date because it's an offline reference. I added the retrieval date for the rest. If 314-now-315 is still an issue, we can just remove it; it was there mainly to establish Sumner's notability when he was a redlink, which is less of an issue now that he has a page.
  • Done. Added OCLC number for "Granite and Sagebrush" (as well as "The History of Pomona College" next to it, which also seems like it needs something).
  • Sounds good.
  • In queue here. I haven't activated IABot before, so if I need to do anything else, please lmk. It gave me a "page too big" error when I tried the initial method.
Thanks again for doing the review! (and giving me an excuse to distract myself from the U.S. election coverage...) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 11:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
No problem – and thanks for your attentiveness. The review definitely gave me a distraction from that as well... eek, the only thing scarier than the anticipation of the election is thinking about a world that has WP:Featured template candidates :) Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

List of avisos of Germany[edit]

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

Comments by Dank

  • Good to see you at FLC again, Nate.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the tables seems fine.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support and well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Your edits look good to me, thanks Dan! Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Some small things:

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

Comments from Hog Farm[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks, Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The 1880s saw a significant aviso construction program that included the two Blitz-class avisos, Greif, the two Wacht-class avisos, and the two Meteor-class avisos" - I'd be tempted to lose the "the" before each class, because it kinda implies that you are referring back to vessels previously mentioned, which isn't the case. Does that make sense?
    • That works for me
  • "Hela was, herself, sunk" - don't think those commas are needed personally
    • Removed
  • "Greif was designed at a time where torpedoes had become" => "Greif was designed at a time when torpedoes had become"
    • Fixed
  • That's all I've got. Great work and an interesting read on a topic I know little about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Belarus[edit]

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

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

Support: Great work! ----Wright Streetdeck 10:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "This is also the only natural site in Belarus" => "This is the only natural site in Belarus"
  • " the Struve Geodetic Arc is also transnational site" => " the Struve Geodetic Arc is also a transnational site"
  • "were inviting artists, craftsmen, and architects" => "invited artists, craftsmen, and architects"
  • "These interactions helped transmitting" => "These interactions helped transmit"
  • The first sentence under the Augustow Canal is incredibly long and confusing - can you break it up?
  • "This nomination is considering" - this should really be "considers" rather than "in considering", but I actually think that "covers" would be a more appropriate verb
  • "In 17th and 18th centuries" => "In the 17th and 18th centuries"
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

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

List of What Would You Do? episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Horacio Vara (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets FL criteria. It shows all the episodes in the series, shows valuable information that could be valuable to the reader, and has a graph/ratings section that adds to its notability. Horacio Vara (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Source review - Pass[edit]

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

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

Your Entertainment Now[edit]

  • So as it turns out, Your Entertainment Now refs (10-34) posted days after the WWYD? episode aired are actually listing "Fast Nationals", which are estimates. I am currently swaping them for the actual SD+ ratings that are posted on the same website, one week after. Horacio Vara (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Britney Spears[edit]

Nominator(s): Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Once Again, I am nominating this for a featured list along with Javila200084898 because I believed that this page already meets FL Criteria and guidelines, Javila200084898 and I are the most contributed to this page. First, as you can see in the previous version which is the table, date, sources, font, and else is a reallu mess so I've made my contributed to clean all the mess until it meets the criteria. In terms of reference, the reference of the previous version is very incomplete and I've resolved this problem. The Lead, Prose, Comprehensiveness is created by Javila200084898 and I believed that the sentence doesn't need the copyediting also in that section I only solved the problem of the date to make all of the dates are consistent. Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • The lead is too long and needs trimming. This could be accomplished by removing stuff which isn't really about her songs e.g. "Unlike all of Spears' previous albums, Blackout was not heavily promoted through magazine interviews, talk-show appearances or televised performances besides a performance at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards and was not accompanied by a tour either" - none of that is really relevant to a list of her songs. I'm not convinced that most of the final paragraph is relevant either. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I would agree that the lead is too long – to the point where it distracts from the actual list. Aza24 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Will do shortly Aza24 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  • ref 2 link isn't working for me (it's going to the home page I think)
  • ref 3 link is broken for me
  • ref 4 doesn't need NPR twice. If the publisher and website are similar enough then only one is needed
  • ref 10 missing author
  • ref 18 missing date and retrieval date
  • ref 22 missing author
  • The liner note refs look good
  • Since you're linking publishers, ref 53 AllMusic can be linked
  • refs 57 and 44 is formatted differently than the other liner notes
  • why does ref 60 link to discogs? Discogs is user generated content and is not a reliable source
  • why is the Japanese edition formatted differently for refs 43 and 44?
  • That's all I got – reliability is fine besides the discogs. I was hesitant about sourcing Spears' official website, but since it's published by Sony I think it's fine. Aza24 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There's been absolutely no move to shorten the lead since I pointed out three weeks or so ago that it was far too long, so it's an oppose from me unless there's some movement in that regard...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Saiff Naqiuddin: are you planning on returning to this? Aza24 (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Saiff Naqiuddin: ? Aza24 (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Aza24: I am really really sorry for the late reply, lately, I'm so busy with SPM's trial so that's why I didn't really active on Wikipedia. Okay so back to your comment. I'll repair the sources as soon as possible and yup I'm returning to this. Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I have solved all the problems as stated by @Aza24: and @ChrisTheDude:. Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the new lead

New lead is much better, but I picked up the following:

  • "reached the top position of every major countries charts" - firstly, it should be "every country's charts". Secondly, this is a huge claim to make (every single major country in the world? Really?) without a single source.
  • "Unlike all of Spears' previous albums, Blackout was not heavily promoted through magazine interviews, talk-show appearances or televised performances besides a performance at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards and was not accompanied by a tour either" - not sure any of this is relevant to a list of her songs
  • "just behind Mariah Carey." => "after Mariah Carey"
  • "Glory the ninth studio-album from Spears was" => "Glory, the ninth studio album from Spears, was"
  • "failed to reach the success of other comparative Spears albums." - the word "comparative" is not needed here
  • That's it on the lead, I will look at the list later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "28.6 million digital singles in the United States only" => "28.6 million digital singles in the United States alone"
  • "with 34,5 million certified albums" => "with 34.5 million certified albums" (commma is not used to indicate a decimal point in the US)

List of awards and nominations received by The West Wing[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The political drama The West Wing was acclaimed throughout its run, becoming one of the most award-winning shows of its time (including four Emmy wins for Outstanding Drama Series, which ties the record). It also remains a fairly popular show today given that it aired its last episode almost 15 years ago. This list has existed for a while, but I recently overhauled the page's formatting and added valid sources – the page had relied heavily on IMDb up to this point, which was really unsatisfying for such a well-known show. I modeled the page after the similar list for Community, which was recently promoted to FL status, so hopefully the formatting looks good. Any and all comments are appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems other than the usual warnings about IMDB (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. The one image is fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • That's all I've got for now. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I made one change to your copyediting from point 1, since it seemed to imply the actors in the preceding sentence were not main cast members (at least to me). RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC) P.S. Agreed with Guerillero about IMDB, and I should have been clearer that IMDB failed the UPSD test, and that knowing what IMDB can or can't be used for is outside my skill set. - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "The original cast starred" - this seems like odd wording. "The original cast included" or "The show originally starred" would work, but I don't think the current wording is right.
  • I would say the episode title "18th and Potomac" should sort under "eighteenth"
  • Similarly, the category "60 Minute Category" should sort under "Sixty"
  • Think that's it from me - great work, overall -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The changes you suggested should now be in place. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

I will get to this sometime soon, a lot of sources! Aza24 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Well that did not take as long as I thought it would. Since everything is archived I didn't have to check for broken links and there are so many Emmy links that checking for consistent formatting for those was easy. Great work here, I don't think I've ever reviewed an article with this many sources and found no inconsistencies with formatting, linking, information or reliability. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


  • Please don't roll your own infobox. The fonts are all off
  • IMDB isn't an RS
  • E Pluribus Unum Award, Family Television Awards, and Publicists Guild of America Awards seems non notable

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox and removed references to IMDb (though the external link at the end is still there). In regard to the three awards you mentioned, here are why I included them:
  • The E Pluribus Unum Awards and the American Cinema Foundation have little to no external coverage, so I'd understand if we removed those – I simply carried them over from earlier versions of the article.
  • I think that the Family Television Awards are notable because they aired on a major network (CBS) and have coverage in external sources (see this and this).
  • The Publicists Guild of America Awards are presented by an accredited guild with external recognition in Variety (as shown in the list's references).
RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Guerillero – since it's been a few weeks, I wanted to make sure you had seen my response. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Guerillero: Have you had a chance to review my changes and consider my explanations for why the awards listed above were included? I'm particularly interested in the latter part; I think there's both reasons to keep and to remove all three, so I wanted to get your thoughts after seeing my explanations. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Sdkb I'm not really a fan of the lead image. It's of Janney more than a decade after the West Wing went off air, so it's not topical, and it's also not a very high quality photo. And a photo of Janney doesn't really communicate the idea of the show getting awards rather than just the actress getting awards. A photo of the full cast would be much better, or we could get creative and try to brainstorm some other kind of visual. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've replaced the image with a different one of the show's logo. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll consider that a pass for the image review haha. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, for the Emmy awards table, could we make that sortable? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. I do notice that, after the sorting button is clicked, it messes up the line for Janney, even once the default state is brought back (a similar thing happens with the main table for the multi-line boxes there). But that'd require attention from someone much better at tables than me to address, or perhaps even a software change. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's no way to remerge cells after splitting them through sorting; I imagine it's very difficult for that to be implemented, so it's not an available feature. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: Someone has recently added a new award from the American Academy of Neurology to the list. I think the organization is noteworthy enough for the award to be included and have formatted the award accordingly, but if other users (including those who have already reviewed the page) would like to check this for themselves, that would be greatly appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Burnley F.C. seasons[edit]

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

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

Source review - Pass[edit]

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

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

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • " first match on 10 August." add year, shouldn't assume the first match occurred in the same year as the foundation.
    Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "there was no league football," link league football.
    Done; relocated the wikilink that was further down the prose. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "the Burnley area.[3] Burnley turned" repetitive.
    Reworded. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The team have played in one of the four professional levels of English football from 1888 to the present day" odd phrasing for me, I guess what you're saying is that the club has played professionally since 1888? Or "in the top four tiers of English football".
    I meant the latter, changed now. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Burnley are one of only five teams (and were the second) to have " I'd have that the other way round, i.e. "Burnley were the second, and one of only five ever..." or similar.
    Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "As at the end" to my ear, this should be "As of the end..." BritEng.
    Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " 57 seasons in the top division of English football, 46 in the second, 11 in the third, and seven " 7
    Amended. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ave attend -> Ave. attend.
    Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorting the table by goals has three different outcomes which is weird.
    There are indeed three outcomes when sorting the stats in the table: 1) By order of season (from earliest to latest), 2) From high to low, 3) From low to high. But isn't that the right way? Readers can see the stats from both sides (2 and 3), and can return to the default setting (1), so there are only two "new" sortings. Looking at other similar lists, they all have three different outcomes when sorting the table. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In fact sorting by any heading apart from Season seems to have three outcomes. What's the deal?
    See above. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What does italics mean in the table? And is that MOS:ACCESS?
    Added the needed information in the key section. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

List of Xevious media[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Alexandra

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

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

@TheJoebro64 and Namcokid47: (notifying the nominators of my review)--AlexandraIDV 13:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Alexandra IDV Issues addressed. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the issues I brought up have been addressed.--AlexandraIDV 22:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Namcokid47 as you're back and editing, do you wish to continue with this nom? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I've been meaning to get around to fixing this up further. I'll gladly take this off of Joebro's hands, if that's fine with him. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of De La Salle University people[edit]

Notified: Moray An Par, WikiProject Higher Education

This list has quite a few issues. The lead is overlong, mostly bloated by examples that should be in the tables. In the alumni table, the relationships column is a mess, with some entries just marked with "U", which I'm not even sure what it means. A few are missing references, as are some faculty entries. I'm not sure whether the honorary degree recipients are important enough to warrant listing. In the references, there are a few permanent dead links, a title error, and a ref used several dozen times that should be in the column heading. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

List of mammals of Canada[edit]

Notified: Circeus, WikiProject Canada

I am nominating this 2007 nomination for removal because it is lacking in sourcing, as evidenced by the template. Many of the conservation statuses are not cited. I also wonder whether any have changed since 2014 (Having recently done this for a much shorter list, I know that adding dozens of IUCN citations is no easy or quick task.) Many images are also absent, despite availability. ~ HAL333([21]) 01:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist. The sourcing tag is definitely valid, which alone is enough. The images are also lacking, and there are concerns about the formatting. No improvement since nom. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Dartmouth College faculty[edit]

Notified: Kane5187

I am nominating this for featured list removal because large sections are outdated and incomplete. ~ HAL333 04:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

  • For example, it says that Bernard Gert has been in an active faculty member since the 1950s, however, he passed away in 2011. ~ HAL333 04:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

List of presidents of Portugal[edit]

Notified: RickMorais, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Portugal

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe its doesn't fit the criteria anymore. There's basically no source, and no improvement after over two weeks notification on talk page. Jarodalien (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe give it a few more weeks? The page has seen some changes since you put it up for removal and I think I can improve on it. But I'm not sure at the moment if it can be improved to the point that all of it is covered by references, so I'm not against removing the feature and then adding it later on. CriMen1 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Just go ahead make improvement that you can, and I don't think we should really care if the feature status removed or not because we could always promoted again when it fits.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see much evidence of the promised improvements, so, unfortunately, I'll vote to Delist this FL. ~ HAL333([22]) 01:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delist per above.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster[edit]

Notified: User:Killervogel5, WikiProject Baseball

Lists are showing significant aging, including:

  • Player rosters have not been updated in a full nine years.
  • Stats need updating for certain players where the player played for the Phillies beyond 2011 (ie Jimmy Rollins in Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (R) played for the Phillies for three more years.) Updating for those already on the list.
  • Leads in every page need to be updated for the numbers of players for that letter or letters.
  • A lot of the files for living or recently deceased people need personality rights templates at the Commons.
  • A lot of the lists have something similar to: "Among the 34 batters in this list, catcher Hezekiah Allen has the highest batting average: a .667 mark, with two hits in his three plate appearances." I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, especially when Baseball Reference doesn't allow cross comparisons amongst players until a certain benchmark is hit for pa/game. Same with pitchers.
  • I would recommend removing the "Italic text indicates that the player is a member of the Phillies' active (25-man) roster" altogether, because honestly it's tedious to update. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. Honestly, I'm just going to call out delist now. It's so out of date it'd be a massive project. The table gives 2,081 players (1,037 hitters and 871 pitchers). The Baseball-Reference citations, when taken together, give 3,104 players (2,090 hitters and 1,014 pitchers). There's some overlap here, as any of the pitchers who pitched in a game without a DH would also be considered as a hitter, I believe (they'd appear on the lineup card, even if they didn't get an at-bat), but that indicates a massive amount of updating needed. No way that gets done in a reasonable amount of time. Hog Farm Bacon 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist and consider merge or AFD JFC if you want baseball statistics, just go to We shouldn't be awarding featured status (or 18! stars) to a mere import of a single webpage of data. Reywas92Talk 21:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist all – It's a shame because these lists were in great condition when they were promoted, but the nominator hasn't been active in years and the lists have fallen out-of-date. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist all per above. ~ HAL333([23]) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Politics, and User:Ironholds

This 2008 nomination has really suffered over the years:

  • The lead prose is severely lacking.
  • The lead is only supported by one reference, and has numerous uncited sentences.
  • The table contains numerous citation needed or full citation needed tags.
  • References have a number of consistency issues, such as linking or proper fields, as well as placement issues (why suddenly add references at the end of the date in the late 2000s)
  • A number of, albeit minor, linking and formatting issues (the picture below the infobox, redlinking of Coalite plc, stuff like that)
  • Not necessarily a disqualifier, but it would be nice if more references were accessible to support WP:V.

Needs some TLC or should be delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. ~ HAL333([24]) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

List of extant papal tombs[edit]

Notified: Gerbis, WikiProject Catholicism

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the issues indicated in the templates added on 5 March 2020 (the reasons for Gerbis adding the templates may be found in Talk:List of extant papal tombs#One source). The article may fail to meet Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 3a, considering that the content may be outdated. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. ~ HAL333([25]) 01:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

List of national anthems[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Countries & WikiProject Songs

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... It has no lead, failing point 2 of the list criteria. Furthermore, it only has 30 refs, half of which are in the "Introduction" rather than at each national anthem, failing point 3. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:SOFIXIT. References in the wrong place in the list can easily be moved. If there isn't one, the article on each remaining anthem should have a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Already created a lede, moved all of the refs out of the main section and supplied others from their articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Finished up to Finland and we're at 100 refs. Many were taken from the linked articles, but several are not well sourced or do not have RSes, so I used The CIA World Fact Book. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Walter Görlitz has done excellent work on this, but we need a reference for each entry at a minimum. I believe that without critical commentary, the categorisation at the bottom of anthems by key is trivia, so should be removed. (The alternative is to replace it with thoroughly sourced prose analysis in the lead of which keys are most common and why. But even this may be better suited to National anthem, which is where I recommend the excellent image is moved to.) If these two things are done then I support keeping the list; otherwise, I support removal. — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • These concerns have now been addressed, except that Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Somaliland and South Ossetia still lack references in the table. Spotchecks done on a couple of entries but Transnistria isn't verified by the given citation (it only gives a different English translation of the anthem name, not the composer, date etc.). — Bilorv (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Bilorv: I have added refs for those you listed. Aza24 (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Keep: outstanding work by both Walter Görlitz and Aza24 has brought this up to current FL standards. — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This list does include some outdated phrasing such as "This table includes" and needs rewording. Also for some reason "Note: This list is for those who have declared independence and are partially recognized." is not actually a note, but a sentence in the lead to the table? This page is showing its age. Mattximus (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per all. There are plenty of LEADCITEs. The "Key" table can likely be merged in the main table if it isn't crufty, and the orange tag has been up since Septemner 2018. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per Aza24; good job with the work! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist swaths of unsourced text in table "National anthems of UN member states and observer states". That alone is enough to delist. @Walter Görlitz: do you have an update? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per Therapyisgood --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. ~ HAL333 15:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - if those above can give me a day or so I'm gonna take a crack at tidying it up Aza24 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Walter Görlitz, Skjoldbro, Mattximus, John M Wolfson, Therapyisgood, Guerillero, and HAL333: Aplogies for pinging you all, but seeing as the article has drastically changed in referencing I figured it was appropriate. I have now put references for every country, a lot of them from their official government websites, or a news source based in the country, but when I couldn't find any of these, I used CIA factbook or the very helpful anthem encyclopedia. I have (perhaps boldly) removed the key table entirely, since I have found that many of the countries on it seem to be placed in the wrong section, and it is completely unsourced. Also, imo it seems unhelpful, in the sense that many of the anthems are often changed key depending on the performer or orchestration. (Orchestra playing it vs band vs choir etc) Anyways, I would appreciate any comments on the current state of the article, since it now seems close to being saved. Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finishing what I started. It looks better now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Walter Görlitz: Indeed. Your work had created a fabulous list and I felt bad seeing it demoted for a lack of references, glad I could help. Aza24 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

My two concerns still have not been addressed, so I’m still leaning towards delist. Mattximus (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I've put the two notes in actual notes and removed the "this table includes" if that addresses it? Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
yes much better, my concerns are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


  • The name in the "Lyricist" column needs to be sorted by last name in some instances. Ie Francis Scott Key should not sort as "Francis" but rather "Key". Template:Sort name could be used, although I don't know all the naming conventions for all the names.
  • The table in the "Anthems of partially recognized states and territories" section should be sortable.
    • Done.
  • What makes reliable?
  • Several of the references need accessdates, ie 34 and 36.
    • Added for 34 and 36.
  • Ref 50 does not appear to be in English. A trans title would be nice.
  • Ref 57: no space before colon.
    • Fixed.
  • Ref 94 is not in English.
    • Changed ref
  • Citing the Factbook variously as, The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency., and The World Factbook. CIA.

Right now I still support delisting. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood: I've been getting distracted with other things and didn't get a chance to go through many of the existing references (the ones there before I came to it), seemingly mostly where these issues arise from. Thanks for your comments, I'll work them out in the next few days – I'll probably tweak the lead around too, it could be better. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero and HAL333: This list has been worked on a bunch since June and some editors have flipped their !vote; are you still in favor of delisting? @Aza24: are you finished with Therapyisgood's comments? --PresN 14:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@PresN: Shoot I completely forgot about this one. I'll get to it this weekend (hopefully), and if I haven't in the next 2–3 days feel free to delist since this one has been here a while. I've been meaning to go through the refs for the first half of the list since some, like Guerillero pointed out, are not reliable. Aza24 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I replaced the source in question with a CIA World Factbook reference (theoretically, you could source most of the list from the CIA Factbook, there's even a page for national anthems, but I don't know if that is acceptable for FA standards). I will look at what other sources need to be replaced or updated. MSG17 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good except for the references, as Guerillero pointed out. ~ HAL333 04:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Guerillero: Are you still on the side of delisting the article? Several of the references appear to have been replaced since your last comment, but I don't want to speak for you. We are getting late in the process and need to make a decision soon. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)