Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in 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

Shortcut WP:FLC v t e Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Disambig links External links Alt text Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. 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 edit · history · watch · refresh 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: List of international goals scored by Manon Melis (FLC) Bibliography of E. T. Whittaker (FLC) Michael Curtiz filmography (FLC) AIFF Player of the Year (FLC) 51st Academy Awards (FLC) List of NHL game sevens (FLC) List of presidents of the National Rifle Association (FLC) Filmography of Stanley Kubrick (FLC) Gibraltar national football team results (FLC) Source reviews needed List of Burnley F.C. players (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: List of mammals of Canada (FLRC) List of De La Salle University people (FLRC) List of schools in Cardenal Caro (FLRC) List of tallest buildings in Bucharest (FLRC)

Nominations

2012 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2012 London Summer Olympics medal table for featured list promotion because I've feel that this list meets the criteria for inclusion. These Olympic games are personally my second favorite edition behind the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. This is my first non-film related list I am attempting to submit for featured list status and I based the format on other Olympic medal tables that became FL. Please feel free to make comments or make adjustments yourself. Birdienest81 (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Slovakia

Nominator(s): Tone 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Slovakia has 7 WHS and 14 sites on the tentative list. The list for Hungary is seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. The style is standard. I am now using a slightly longer version of the intro which should help with the often-seen concern that the intro was short. The style follows the previously promoted FLs. Tone 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman on screen and stage

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the greatest actors of his generation. This list describes his roles in film, television and the stage. As always I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• No worries - support. What a shame this is one list that won't need any updating going forward........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Municipalities of Jalisco

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Coyatoc (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

We are continuing our goal of bringing all lists of municipalities in Mexico up to a consistent, high standard (9 states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's not really a big deal so support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your review! Mattximus (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals

In your opinion, the page satisfies the FL Criterias? Dr Salvus (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I nominate it for the featured list because in my opinion it meets all the criteria to become Featured List. After proposing the appointment a few days ago I made many changes and I also asked for the peer review. Dr Salvus (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus: You cannot delete other users' comments from an FLC, as you did here. This is unacceptable behavior for any talk page or discussion. I have added the comments back. While I am willing to accept on good faith that this may have been an accident, if it happens again, I will be forced to oppose on a procedural basis. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: I apologize. I made an error in good faith. I got confused in something. I didn't understood what I had to do. Please leave comments about this page. Are you for or against about the nomination of the page for FL?

In terms of the actual article, sourcing is still a major concern.

• Source 1 is from AlterVista, which allows anyone to make their own website, so we don't know if it is reliable.
• Source 2 says nothing about Serie B, Serie C, and Serie D teams, so it isn't a proper source for the statement it follows.
• Source 3 is about this year's championship, not past years' championships, so it also isn't a proper source for the statement it follows.
• Source 6 is a book from 2004, so even if it verifies everything before that (I'm assuming it does, but I can't check because I don't have the ISBN, which you should probably add), it leaves the last 15 or so years unsourced.
• Source 7 contradicts the article and cites Wikipedia, so it is no good. (This was pointed out to you in the peer review.)

Other issues:

• There are no images; per WP:FLCR #5b, you should probably add one or two.
• I'm not a fan of writing the team names twice in years with two legs in the finals. At a quick glance, it gives the wrong impression that the team won two years in a row. I would suggest merging the team names in those years to span both rows.
• Don't use rows that span multiple columns, as in 1937–38, 1940–41, and so on. This causes accessibility and sorting issues. If you need to explain something, put it in an existing box or in a footnote. (The exception is 1926–27, since there was no final.)

If you're looking for similar FL examples, I would suggest looking at List of FA Cup Finals and List of Super Bowl champions as a starting point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Hi. I made some edits. Is the page ready for FL, or it need of more edits? Unfortunatley I did not find the ISBN of the book I've cited. Dr Salvus (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: - seriously, you don't need to keep asking over and over again if people think the article is ready for FL. People will support it if they think it's ready, you don't need to keep asking everyone the question...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You've made some changes, but not everything that I noted was fixed. Right away, I noticed there are still rows spanning multiple columns that cause sorting issues and you did not remove source 1 even though its reliability is unclear (in other words, not acceptable for a FL). Also, the new source 5 does not appear reliable, and the attendance numbers for recent tournaments are still unverified. Additionally, the image does not have alt text, which it needs for accessibility reasons.

When it comes to sourcing, don't just find a random website listing the information you need to verify. You need to use reliable sources – official league or tournament websites, or websites for newspapers and magazines, are ideal. You also must have clear sources for everything in the list. You may not be able to find a single reliable source listing all of the information in the table for every tournament; in that case, find source for individual matches. Is it more work? Absolutely – but FLs aren't easy to do properly; they require a lot of time and research to be thoroughly sourced and verified. Please don't rush this; take the time to find everything you need. That ISBN, for instance, has to be out there somewhere; don't say you can't find it after only a few hours of work. (For reference, my current FL nominee has 172 references, and it took me about a month of dedicated work and research to get it from here to here.) If this needs to happen, maybe you should withdraw the nomination and take the time to find all of those sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the image you used is taken from Getty Images, meaning it is not free to use. I have removed the link here and will be deleting the image from Wikimedia Commons shortly. You cannot add copyrighted images to an article without a detailed explanation of why the image is necessary and why there are no alternatives available, which you have not done here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The photo caption should be "The Coppa Italia trophy" (no 's)
• There should not be a space between the end of the second sentence and the ref
• "Since the first final of the 1922 season between Vado and Udinese" => "Since the first final between Vado and Udinese in 1922" (and no need to link the 1922 season again, you already linked it two sentences earlier)
• There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the second paragraph
• "Juventus holds the record" => "Juventus hold the record"
• "Milan lost the greatest" => "Milan have lost the greatest"
• There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the third paragraph
• "The final match with the highest number of scored goals" => "The highest-scoring final"
• "Sampdoria–Ancona in 1994, where Sampdoria won 6–1" => "Sampdoria–Ancona in 1994, which Sampdoria won 6–1"
• The refs immediately after that should be in correct numerical order
• There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref after "Juventus in 2020"
• No need to link Juventus again in the last sentence of the lead
• Refs after the final sentence of the lead should be in correct numerical order
• Refs at the top of each table should be in correct numerical order
• There should not be a full stop after "edition not completed" in 1926-27
• Why were there no finals between 1922 and 1927, between 1927 and 1936, and between 1943 and 1957? This should be explained somewhere, probably in the lead
• If you sort on any other column and then re-sort by year, some of the rows saying "XXX won on aggregate" appear above the individual legs and some below
• I find it hard to believe that so many attendances are unknown, especially for finals as recent as the late 1980s
• Ref 1 is some random person's blog - not a reliable source
• UEFA.com is not the author of ref 7
• Date format is different in different refs
• Quite a bit of work to do, I'm afraid...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:

I made the edits that you advised me. Thank you. I've not understood very well these two comments.

• If you sort on any other column and then re-sort by year, some of the rows saying "XXX won on aggregate" appear above the individual legs and some below (what do you mean?)
  • If you sort on the "winners" column, and then sort on "season" so that they go back into date order, the row saying "Internazionale won 2–1 on aggregate." for 1981-82 appears below the results of the two matches, but the row saying "2–2 on aggregate: Roma won 4–2 on penalties after extra time." for 1980-81 appears above the results of the two matches??? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• I find it hard to believe that so many attendances are unknown, especially for finals as recent as the late 1980s (data about the numbers of spectators for each final from the 1980s to today are present) -- Dr Salvus (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • What I meant is that I find it implausible there is no available source for the attendance at the final in, for example, 1986, given that List of FA Cup Finals has (sourced) attendance figures right back to the 1870s.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much. I would like know if the page will be suitable for FL when I will find the data about attendance and when I'll make the adjustment which you've advised? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

      Dr Salvus, we know you would like to know if the page will be suitable for FL, because you keep asking. This is the 6th time you've explicity asked on this page, not counting the nomination itself (or your first nomination). As you have already been told twice: Don't keep asking. Rather, read about the FL process in the blue box at the top of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates.

      And no, when you have made all of the changes suggested by ChrisTheDude, you need to address the concerns raised by RunningTiger123. There may be more editors looking at the list you've nominated, and they will probably raise other issues. Be patient, and let the process play out. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? Dr Salvus (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What does who mean by what? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• There are still lots of spaces between full stops and references, something I pointed out above
• "and 1943 from 1957" should be "and from 1943 to 1957"
• "the competition was not concluded on 1926–27" => "the competition was not concluded in 1926–27"
• "Finals matches of Coppa Italia" (above the table) => "Coppa Italia finals" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of endemic birds of Borneo

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at a featured list. I've been working on this one for a few months, since finding it on the WP:BIRDS project list of articles in need of improvement, and I think it's ready. We have very few featured lists in the project (and even fewer so thoroughly sourced), and I'd like to help change that. MeegsC (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick driveby comments: the table needs colspan and rowspan tags (see MOS:DTAB) for accessibility, and the images need alt text (it can be basic, e.g. "drawing of a green bird"). Also note that you seem to be recreating {{IUCN statuses}} with an infobox, which is fine but just letting you know the option is there. --PresN 16:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

PresN thanks for pointing me to the IUCN statuses template; I didn't know about that one! I've added alt text for all pictures. I'm not clear on where to add the COLSPAN/ROWSPAN tags. Do I need to add those (i.e. |colspan=1 rowspan=1) for each element? Or can I do it once for the table? MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it as it was quicker than trying to explain (mainly because I mucked it up in the first place by saying "colspan" when I meant "colscopes", e.g. scope="col". That said, now that's done, it is strange that the first column, aka the "main" column, is the "taxon order" instead of the bird name. Taxon order just doesn't seem like the most important thing here; this may be because I don't fully understand it- it seems to just be the ordering that some list put bird genera/species in? E.g. they wrote out the tree of birds and flattened it into an excel table? I don't see how that ordering adds anything to the reader, it seems entirely arbitrary which order/family etc. was listed first, none of which is present in this table anyways. And if it's a fairly arbitrary ordering, even if helpful to bird researchers, to have, then I don't think it should be the primary column in the table even if that's what the table's default sort is. I'd expect the birds' names to be first, even if the table isn't default sorted alphabetical.

A second new point- the EBA column only has one possible value in this list (since Borneo only has one EBA), but I was surprised to see that as I expected to find the secondary EBA ids in that column too. That would make it more useful here; I'm not sure if you were just going for consistency with other lists and it's only odd because of the size of the country. --PresN 03:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

PresN, thanks for fixing the table. I'll have a look, so I know what to do in the future. As to why the list is in taxonomic order, that's standard for lists of birds. Those who are interested in birds are surely the most likely to use this list, and they're well-used to seeing things in this order; it's how all field guides are arranged, for example. Those who aren't used to this order can easily sort it by common or scientific name instead. That's why I used sortable columns. As for the EBA column, there are actually two values in the list; one of the secondary EBAs is there as well. (The other EBAs don't house species endemic only to Borneo.) I thought that readers might be interested to know which of Borneo's endemics could be found in the designated EBA(s), but if you and others think that it's extraneous information, I can certainly remove it. MeegsC (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: Source 9 is probably going to cause issues because it's a Google Docs spreadsheet with no clear author. Is there another source with the same information, or is there some way to prove that this source is reliable and not just a random Google Doc? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123, I've linked instead to the page that calls the spreadsheet. It shows the editors, publisher, etc. Would that be sufficient? MeegsC (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's better – it makes it clear who the original organization is. I'll try to do a more thorough review later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment "The following list is" is outdated wording. This could be a note for the first column or simply reworded into something like: "The International Ornithologists' Union provides a taxonomic order for the 56 endemic birds of Borneo based on x". That would work too. Mattximus (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Mattximus I thought that was only for the lede! I've modified this to put it as a note for the Taxonomic Order column. Can you please have another look at tell me if this suffices? MeegsC (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "montane birds could move lower" - is there a wikilink that could cover what a "montane bird" is (because I have no idea, personally)?

  I've changed this to "so montane birds (those generally restricted to the slopes of mountains) could move lower"... Does that work?

• " The vulnerable grey imperial pigeon" - is there a way to break up this sea of blue? At first glance I thought "vulnerable" was part of the species name

  I've changed this to "The grey imperial pigeon, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers to be a vulnerable species, is found on a dozen or so of the islands" Does that make it clearer?

• "Hill dipterocarp forest" - link to explain this (seemingly) rather technical term?

  I've linked dipterocarp. Is that enough? Or does it need further explanation? These trees are a hugely important part of the Bornean plant community.

• "particularly bamboo grovesLowland" - seems to be some punctuation and spacing missing here

• Actually the "Lowland" bit got pasted in by mistake with a reference. Thanks for catching it!

• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude, thanks for the review! Do these fixes address your concerns? MeegsC (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Pop Smoke discography

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is well-sourced and organized. I've used other FL discographies; like Meghan Trainor discography and Bruno Mars discography. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Personally I wouldn't have columns in a table which have no content, but I guess it's not a big deal so OK to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Burnley F.C. players (50–99 appearances)

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Burnley F.C. list (and the last one)... This one covers all players who have made between 50 and 99 appearances for the club. Some familiar names might include Charlie Austin and Joey Barton. One of the early pioneering managers and a quite unknown figure in England, Jimmy Hogan, is also included. I'm looking forward to all feedback/reviews! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Per criterion 3c. I apologize I missed the other FLC, but I am just baffled why this would be split from List of Burnley F.C. players. Neither list is so long or complex that it needs to be broken up, and doing so reduces the utility of sorting the table. I just test-implemented a combined list and the page is only 70kb (and page length restrictions only apply to readable prose). Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92 I proposed a merger between the two lists not too long ago (Talk:List of Burnley F.C. players) but it was rejected. These kind of lists are growing rapidly because a player "only" has to play two seasons to be included. This list was never split in the first place but just created to include Burnley F.C. players who have played between 50 and 99 apps for the team, as is common for other clubs, although most have players included between 25 and 99 apps (see e.g. List of Arsenal F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Cardiff City F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances)). Also, this list is currently about 36kb, which is enough to be a stand-alone list. I hope you want to reconsider your oppose. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that there are already 12 FLs of the type "List of Example F.C. players (nn-nn appearances)"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Chris's comment there was "The merged article would be huge" but I just did a test merge on that page, and it is by no means too huge, smaller than many other FLs. GiantSnowman said there should be "manageable articles" but I see no basis to suggest that this is unmanageable. This combined Burnley article would have 371 names, while List of Gillingham F.C. players (also >50 apps) has 406 names. Is that page manageable? Absolutely. List of Manchester United F.C. players (1–24 appearances) has 477 names but are we actually having trouble managing that? If this were 1-99 two articles may make more sense. I think a few of the other teams' lists could be consolidated too – again, improving sortability and reducing duplication – and the excuse that other pages are split doesn't hold water, especially since it seems all of those go down to 25 or even just 1 appearance! Reywas92^Talk 21:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92 That testmerge shows the list will be quite large and will be much larger within a few seasons per the reasons above (and might cause a split proposal in the near future). Burnley have had about 1,500 players in their history (in +/- 140 years). If we would make a list which includes players who made between 1 and 99 apps, it would consist of at least 1,200 players (too much and the number will grow and grow). I don't see a valid reason why such lists (25/50-99 apps) shouldn't be existing.

GiantSnowman and ChrisTheDude (sorry to bother you both) might explain their reasons better than me... WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say to cross that bridge when you get to it. Neither the above Manchester and Gillingham articles are unmanageable, nor is this combined one. Reywas92^Talk 22:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm getting confused as to what Reywas92 is suggesting - is it that the list of players with 50-99 apps should be merged in with the list of those with 100+ apps, while the 1-49 list should remain separate? Or that all three should be merged together? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, scratch that, I hadn't noticed (half asleep) that there isn't actually a 1-49 list for Burnley....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I confess when I commented at the above-linked talk page I think I was skim-reading and thought the proposal was to create a single list for all Burnley players ever, not just one for 50+..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's standard to split lists like this into separate articles, broken down by number of appearances. I don't understand what the issue is. GiantSnowman 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Chris and Snowman. I should have been clearer in the merge proposal, to save the confusion. This situation leaves us with some options. Firstly, this nom can stay open but won't attract many reviewers because of the real possibility that this nom will be archived (and I don't blame anyone who doesn't want his/her time being wasted on reviewing it). We can also merge both lists. Thirdly, we can leave it as it is and maybe even create a third one (but leave the possibility it will be opposed for the same reason). And there are some more options. I don't really have a strong preference to be honest, but I'm interested what would be the wisest decision. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"this nom can stay open but won't attract many reviewers" - there's no reason to assume this will be the case....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

People are more than welcome to review the page and overrule my opinion, but I think one topic ought to be reviewed as one featured article rather than separate assessments, and I see no basis for this split other than "but other pages have been split!" since the other split pages have a greater total number of entries. IMHO the need to a split for "manageability" is not there as the merged list is still an easily editable size, in accordance with 3c. You've done really fine work on this and I otherwise support but keeping it on one page would still have it all featured. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92 Fair enough. Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I genuinely couldn't find anything to pick up, and I don't have an issue with the list being separate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you as ever for the comments and review, Chris! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sculptures of the National Statuary Hall Collection

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I had been working on this list for several months before the events of January 6. Fortunately none of the statues were seriously damaged. I hope this serves as an effective catalogue of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Since the table is sortable, duplicate wikilinks should probably be used in the Medium and Location columns.

Fixed. ~ HAL333 23:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• While the statues of Douglass and Parks are both significant, their relevant sources (here and here) both clearly state that they are not part of the National Statuary Hall Collection.

Removed. ~ HAL333 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Should the sculptor Felix de Weldon sort by "Weldon" or "de Weldon"? I'm genuinely asking; I'm not sure how last names like this work.

I had to look it up myself. Apparently, a name like that sorts with "de" only if what follows is a single syllable. How specific. ~ HAL333 23:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Other than that, it looks really good; I found the statues fascinating when I visited the Capitol and am happy to see this as an FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – I removed the key (no need for it anymore if every statue is from a state), but everything else looks good to go. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I can think of a couple minor improvements, but I think this list serves Wikipedia's readers well and should be promoted to FL status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

List of presidents of Georgetown University

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my first FL nomination, so feedback from the FL regulars would be much appreciated. I've improved this article several times over the years, most significantly in the past week, and believe it meets the FL criteria. Thanks in advance. Ergo Sum 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• You should center the refs in the column. Use |style="text-align:center;"|
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• president of Georgetown University doesn't need to be bolded.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• You should add scope to the column with their names. User !scope=row|
  • I think I've done it correctly here. Is the bolded text and darker cell background supposed to be the correct output (instead of for the number column)? Ergo Sum 19:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• The lede looks good. But it could be better. I think you could expand the third paragraph by noting some trends and nuances. Gender, shortest-serving, their background, other interesting things, etc.
  • There's not a whole lot more I think can be put into the lede but I will do some digging. My only concern with trends was verifiability. I won't be able to find sources for trends, but would have to infer it from the table below. Not 100% sure whether that's allowed by policy. Ergo Sum 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I've fleshed out the third paragraph with trends about religious order membership and how many went on to become bishops, etc. I can't think of/find a whole lot more to add to the lede. Ergo Sum 01:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not a huge fan of having the references in the notes column. I would move them to the ref column.
  • The only reason I've done that is because there would otherwise be 4 or more links in the references column for some people, which seems unsightly and a bit confusing for readers. Right now, the references in the ref column support their order in the sequence and the dates of their office. I admit it's not a great setup to have some refs in the ref column and some in the notes column, but I'm not sure how else to do it. Ergo Sum 19:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• It would be nice if you put a few of the better portraits of the presidents to the right of the table.
  • I have correctly licensed portraits for every president but one. I considered creating a column for portraits between number and name (e.g. List of presidents of Washington College). Do you think it would be better to do that or just have a couple to the right of the table? The only downside to having a dedicated column would be that it would lengthen the table and create some empty space for people with nothing in the notes column. Ergo Sum 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all for now. I'll be back. ~ HAL333 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Have you had a chance to take a look at my comments? Ergo Sum 20:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Humphrey Bogart on stage, screen, radio and television

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This was a rescue of an un-sourced filmography created in 2005, with very little context or sourcing since then. Given that Humphrey Bogart was an iconic figure during his lifetime, and a film legend ever since, I decided to clean this up and source it. Let's see how it measures up by FLC standards. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Don't have time for a full review right now, but two things that immediately jump out are as follows:
  • There is no reason for the abbreviation "misc" to be used in a section heading - write the word in full

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Towards the end of the article, prose is suddenly abruptly replaced with bullet points. Turn these into proper prose.

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I will look at the article properly later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• I wouldn't bold his name.

✓ Done unbolded — Maile (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• A lot of the lede requires referencing.

Can you clarify? MOS:LEADCITE This lede is a recap of the rest of the article, which is extensively sourced. I've never been asked to source a lede before, but I've been advised to remove citations from ledes. — Maile (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For example, you need a source for his lifespan, the bit about the National Film registry, etc. Basically, just anything which isn't sourced later in the article. ~ HAL333 19:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll deal with this after I take care of your other suggestion to make it more interesting. But the National Film registry is already sourced in the body. I'll double check it all after the revamping of the lead.— Maile (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• For his life span, you can just put year-year

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The lede is a little lacking imo. See for inspiration.

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the chronological image placement. I would make the highest quality on the lede, place theatre images in the Broadway section, and Hollywood images in the film section.

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• What makes Forgotten New York a high quality reliable source?

✓ Done - Replaced with a New York Times source. — Maile (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Radio Gold Index ref is dead.

✓ Done - removed it; the other cite in that column still works. — Maile (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

More later. ~ HAL333 15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is it Duke Mantee or Duke Manatee?

✓ Done - Excellent catch! It's Mantee, and I've corrected where it said otherwise.— Maile (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Broadway in the lede.

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Also link Academy Award for Best Actor in the lede and body. ~ HAL333 19:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would link Brother Orchid in the lede caption. Same thing for some of the later captions.

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Italicize "In a Lonely Place".

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• You should make the roles sortable by surname.

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The director column should be removed. If any of that material is especially notable, I would add it to the lede.

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Removed "his" from a film that he and his co-stars Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• He would again be nominated for the award for The Caine Mutiny (1954)[143] I would avoid "would".

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• He posthumously received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on February 8, 1960. Just the year would work.

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The United States Postal Service honored Bogart in 1997, at ceremony at Grauman's Chinese Theatre unveiling Bogart's stamp as part of the postal service's Legends of Hollywood series. --> "The United States Postal Service honored Bogart in 1997, at a ceremony at Grauman's Chinese Theatre unveiling Bogart's stamp as part of the "Legends of Hollywood" series."

✓ Done — Maile (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

More comments soon. ~ HAL333 02:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

M. Night Shyamalan filmography

Nominator(s):

Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC) ; Some Dude From North Carolina

I am nominating this for featured list because in my opinion it is well referenced and written. With the help of Some Dude From North Carolina we have joined forces in the creation and writing of the article. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• Remove the first and third use of "also"

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

• Would place scope on the film titles.
• In ref 38, just call the work Vulture.

Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

• You should make some sections of the table sortable.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

• I despise row span, but that's just my personal preference.

Overall, looks pretty good. ~ HAL333 15:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 17:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 01:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

List of carnivorans

Nominator(s): PresN 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For nearly two years, I've been nominating lists of species in Carnivora (felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds), covering all of the families of animals in the order that could support a list. Above them, however, was a parent list: List of carnivorans (ex. List of species in order Carnivora), which was a simple bulleted list of all of the species in the order. It couldn't be supplanted by the child lists: 4 of the 15 families are too small to support a list, and the concept of "everything in the order" made sense. But a list that had 11 "main" templates and 4 tiny sections wasn't much use to readers, nor was a mile-long duplicative series of tables. So, we arrive at a capstone FLC: Instead of duplicating the child lists by using the same tables to cover all 285 species, we pull back a level to match the scope going up a level, and have tables covering the 129 genera in the order Carnivora, letting viewers see the relationships at that level with child lists to drill down further into individual families. I hope it is interesting to read! Thanks for reviewing. --PresN 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Good choice to do by genus!
• "different" before "body plans" is superfluous
• Collage selection is nice
• Subfamily Ailurinae (Gray, 1843) – one genera" and elsewhere: should be one genus
• "Members of the Canidae family are canids, and include..." and similar elsewhere shouldn't have a comma.
• "Members of the Mustelidae family are mustelids, and are composed of" It's not 'members are composed of', should be 'members include' like the others
• I see the pattern for those with multiple species but it's not clear why some genus names have a common name under them and not others
• I think the diets overuse the word "Primarily". I think it can generally be assumed these are not exhaustive or exclusive lists of everything they can eat. Heck, you can leave off the "eats" and just have a plain list without being a sentence. Though looking at some of the other lists this is used in all of them and I'm surprised I hadn't noticed it before.
• Odobenidae: lowercase walrus

Looking forward to supporting at FTC as well! Reywas92^Talk 20:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Addressed all issues, thanks for the compliment! The common names are where the genus has one (and has more than one species); most don't- for example, Canis includes both some wolves and the coyote and golden jackal; there's no common name for the group. It's uncommon enough that I'm willing to drop the whole thing as being awkward for readers. --PresN 03:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I would otherwise suggest removing the parentheses and putting the common name with every genus but yeah since many don't have a single one maybe someone else has a suggestion. Nice work, Support. If you have a chance, a review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1 would be appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Carnivora can be divided into two suborders: the cat-like Feliformia and the dog-like Caniformia, which are differentiated based on the structure of their ear bones and cranial features." - is there a ref for that sentence in the lead, particularly the last clause? I can't see it sourced anywhere in the body of the article (everything else not cited in the lead seems to be covered by citations in the tables)
• I can see both "molluscs" and "mollusks" used - personally I didn't even realise it could be spelt both ways but better to be consistent on one or the other
• That's all I got - fantastic work on this list (and the whole topic)! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Now cited; fixed spelling to "molluscs" - that's the 'correct' scientific spelling (since the genus is mollusca), even if 'mollusks' is a used variant, and it was actually a typo- I didn't realize the k version was a thing and my browser's spellcheck didn't flag it. Thanks! --PresN 03:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Nothing caught my eye. Admirable work. ~ HAL333 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Billboard Top Holiday Albums number ones of the 2010s

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a list of works that reached number one on the US Top Holiday Albums chart in the 2010s decade. I have noticed that there are several other Billboard-related featured list candidates, and I am hoping to bring this one along too. I am the primary contributor to the list and it could become my sixth featured list if given support. I welcome all suggestions and feedback. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC).

Comments

• It might seem obvious but it might be worth stating in the lead that the chart is specifically for Christmas-themed albums, in case anyone thinks it's simply for the biggest-selling albums during the Christmas period (which could be any album)
• "Other musicians, like Blake Shelton,.....,amongst others" - any particular reason for singling out these seven? I'd be tempted to scrap this sentence entirely and replace it with a brief comment on how many of these albums were actually the biggest-selling album in the country at the time and therefore also topped the Billboard 200. I know the Susan Boyle album did, but I don't think many of the others did. You could also mention some/all of the albums which also topped genre charts e.g. the Duck Dynasty one (somehow) also topped the country albums chart.........
• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude – thank you for posting some comments so quickly. I have made edits to the list based upon your suggestions above. Let me know how it looks now, and thanks again. Carbrera (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC).

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude – thank you for the support. Would you mind commenting on the notability issue? Carbrera (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC).

• Although the topic is not notable at all, this should be presented more like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, with only a new line when a different album reaches number one. There is zero need to have 9 or 10 lines for one album. Just indicate the number of weeks on the right in another column. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – I revised the table. It is not exactly like the list you suggested, partly due to the difficulty I had in attempting to convey that many albums reappear on the holiday charts every year (specifically Christmas by Michael Bublé and the first 2 Pentatonix releases), but I tried my best in making them similar. What do you think of it, now? Carbrera (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC).

Comments from HĐ

• The lead is kind of fragmented. Why are some albums given specific sales figures, and why some aren't? Is it necessary to mention some artists' popularity/relevance during the holiday season (I could get it for Mariah Carey somewhat)? Some data are backed up by Billboard chart history of certain artists, which I am quite concerned whether it is a case of OR (i.e. returned to the top spot in 2016 after previously reaching it in 1998; I'd include a release year instead). I understand that as this is a decade-focused list, the lead may be particularly challenging to be engaging. I hope some of my comments help (and ping me when you've revised the lead). For the table, I concur with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars as above. HĐ (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I disagree with the edits made at Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's suggestion. It is now unclear when albums return to the charts after leaving the top spot. For instance, Lady Antebellum's A Merry Little Christmas entered the top spot on October 30, 2010, for two weeks, but the next album listed is from November 20, 2010, which is three weeks later. It takes a lot of undue digging to realize that The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection snuck in there for a week. As I see it, there are two options: return to the original formatting (which I personally see no issue with), or restate an album every time it reappears in the chart. In the latter case, the number of weeks would refer to the number of consecutive weeks it was at number one during that run. So, for example, 2010 would have 2 weeks for My Christmas, 1 week for The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection, 2 weeks for Celtic Thunder: Christmas, 2 weeks for A Merry Little Christmas, and then 1 more week for The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection.

Other comments:

• Remove bold text in lead (MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD).
• Do not use column headers in the middle of the table to separate by year; this causes accessibility issues and sorting issues.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I do see your point in how the chart is seasonal that an album returning to number one in December 2010 then again in December 2011. I prefer this layout, however, and List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s provides a way of showing returning number ones in a way you suggest. There's still a major concern about notability of the chart itself and this list, failing criteria 3c (it must meet all of the requirements for stand-alone lists, including WP:NLIST). None of the non-Billboard sources listed mention this chart and List of Billboard Holiday 100 number-one songs was deleted at AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – I do not share your same concern. If it is a matter of finding sources that refer to the chart, I have come across many in my research and can incorporate more into the article if necessary. The Forbes source I recently added to the list is one of them. Personally, I don't believe the other holiday chart is relevant to this discussion. The Top Holiday Albums chart has been around for decades, whereas the Holiday 100 has existed for less than 10 years according to the linked discussion. Carbrera (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC).

I also share the same concern with RunningTiger123. The List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s contains the same accessibility issue that was mentioned above, whereas the original layout I used does not. Switching to the format style on the UK list would require that each album be numbered in the table, which I don't know if I find very necessary. Carbrera (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC).

I think that the example provided by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars works well. It's possible to simply exclude the "No." column while repeating entries that charted at separate times. As to criterion #3c... Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is right in that the only non-Billboard source that actually mentions the Top Holiday Albums charts (at least that I could find) is the Forbes article, and that's tangential at best. However, since Billboard is established as a major record chart producer, I don't know that we have to find standalone sources for this specific chart. It's like the numerous pages in Category:Primetime Emmy Awards; many don't have third-party sources to back them up, but since the Emmys are the most prestigious award in American television, it isn't necessary to establish notability for each individual category. They're notable because they're Emmys and the Emmys in general are notable; maybe the same applies to Billboard charts. If he doesn't mind, I'd like to ping @ChrisTheDude on this, since he's worked a lot on country charts and probably has a better understanding of chart notability. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the chart's appearance, I can agree to that. I will begin making edits to the list. Thanks for your suggestions so far. Carbrera (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC).

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, RunningTiger123 – Apologies for not pinging sooner but I recently changed the table's appearance. Thoughts? Carbrera (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC).

Yes, that looks a lot better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Support (assuming that any issues with criteria #3c are resolved) – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Formula One seasons

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This list is about the 71 seasons of the FIA Formula One World Championship that have been held thus far. I have redone this list and hope that it meets the necessary criteria to become a featured list. Looking forward to all comments in this review. MWright96 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "a series of races, known as Grands Prix, held usually on purpose-built circuits, and in a few cases on closed city streets,[4] the most prestigious of which is the Monaco Grand Prix in Monte Carlo" - wording is ambiguous as to whether Monte Carlo is the most prestigious of the street GPs or of all GPS, might be worth clarifying
• Note a - might be worth adding a few words to explain why
• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have made the appropriate changes MWright96 (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Apologies, but "Grands Prix, held usually on purpose-built circuits, and in a few cases on closed city streets, the most prestigious event of the year which is the Monaco Grand Prix" doesn't really make sense gramatically. Assuming that you mean that Monte Carlo is the most prestigious of the street GPs specifically, I would suggest "Grands Prix, held usually on purpose-built circuits, and in a few cases on closed city streets; the most prestigious of the street circuits is the Monaco Grand Prix" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Made the change MWright96 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanBodyPiloter5

• No image illustrating the article, although it's unclear what image one would use. Possibly a picture of a 1950 Formula One car alongside a 2020 Formula One car?
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Needs a go over with regards to MOS:NUMBER.
  • Made changes in this regard MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Opening statement is potentially contentious. Qualifying that you mean world championship seasons specifically in the first sentence may be worthwhile.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not familiar with ChicaneF1 as a source. I see that it is used on some FA-class Formula One related articles however. Will assume in good faith that it's a reliable source unless someone wants to challenge that.
• A secondary/independent source on the FIA stuff may be prefereable but isn't really necessary as it's not a contentious statement to someone who knows about the subject.
• ESPN source backs up the potentially contentious nature of the opening statement, as it suggests that the first Formula One season may have been in 1946 (although some sources will say 1947 or 1948) with 1950 being the first world championship season. The ESPN source is somewhat ambiguous on the matter, to the degree that it might look self-contradictary to someone without background knowledge.
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• The ESPN source does back up the statement that preceeds it although the wording is rather close to the source. Also I just know it's correct anyway.
• You may want to add a "not a typo" template to uses of "Grands Prix" since occasionally drive-by editors/bots try to correct it to "Grand Prixs" or "Grand Prix".
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Can't access book source (ISBN 0-75258-766-8) but the statement is uncontentious so I'll take it on good faith.
• I would change "the most prestigious of the street circuits is the Monaco Grand Prix held in Monte Carlo" to say "the most prestigous of the street races is the Monaco Grand Prix" as the circuit is the Circuit de Monaco and I'm not sure if it's necessary to specify Monte Carlo here. Source is behind a paywall but the statement isn't contentious so I'll take it on good faith.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• We know that the minimum number was eight in 2020. It presumably wasn't in 1950 when there were less than eight races. Some sort of "as of" qualifier may make this clearer. Source checks out.
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• 2020 only visited Europe and Asia so a statement regarding force majeure may be worthwhile here. Similarly 1950 only had races in Europe and North America.
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Explanatory footnote regarding the Indianapolis 500 may be sensible when talking about the number of Grands Prix in a season. If I wanted to be pedantic then I'd argue in favour of using the term "Grandes Épreuves" in the footnote but it's probably not necessary.
  • Included MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• A secondary source which shows that the rules have always been as they are in the current regulations may be preferable to using the 2020 sporting regulations as a primary source, but again the statements being sourced are not contentious ones.
• Telegraph source has limited access. Statement is in no way contentious though.
• "Different car make/engine combinations" is a slightly awkward wording. Personally I would word this as "different combinations of car and engine makes" or "different combinations of chassis and engine makes".
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Explanatory footnote regarding the 1981 changes may be worthwhile (particularly regarding the Constructors' Championship), provided a source can be found.
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Another book source I can't access (ISBN 0-946132-63-1), but I will take it on good faith as to my knowledge based off of other sources I've read in the past the statement is true.
• Forix/8W lists European Champions alongside World Champions. Not massively relevant to this article but I do think a mention of the status of the World Drivers' Championship as the effective successor to the pre-Second World War European Driver's Championship may be warranted, provided suitable sourcing is available.
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that "a total of 1,035 Formula One World Championship races have been held" is the clearest wording for the average reader. Again a footnote somewhere explaining the somewhat convoluted history of the World Championship may be warranted, but it shouldn't be given undue weight lest it prove distracting and confusing.
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Checking the stats against sources they all seem correct.
• I think it would be better to say that "Over 71 seasons there have been 33 participants from 14 different nationalities who have won the World Drivers' Championship. Over 63 seasons there have been 15 teams representing 5 individual nations that have claimed the World Constructors' Championship." than the current phrasing, which puts the "71 seasons" statistic nearer to the Constructors.
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• The list itself is a little on the bare side. I understand that there's a fine balancing act to manage between not including enough information and bombarding the reader with confusing miscellanea, but maybe some information about when the first and last race of each season was held and how many countries held races in each season would be appropriate, providing it can be sourced.
  • Added first and last races of each season to the table MWright96 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unsure if it's correct to say that McLaren had 15 points deducted at the 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix as to my knowledge they were never awarded those points to begin with. The source given appears to align with my belief.
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing major keeping this from featured status. It needs a little bit more work but if that gets done then I'd happily support this gaining the status.

• @HumanBodyPiloter5: Have made various changes to the list MWright96 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis

Piece of cake: comments resolved, striked to support.

• First sentence is hard to navigate. The "the highest class" fragment follows "Formula 1", so it's safe to assume that F1 is "the highest class of open wheeled auto racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA)." Then there's "motorsport's world governing body". Mind explaining the structure of this sentence?
• "This can be declared invalid if the FIA grants F1 an waiver for its "long‐established use of the word “World”." Should be ended with an end-quote. Per MOS, replace the curvies with apostrophes (').
• "Different combinations of chassis and engine makes are considered to be different constructors for the purposes of the Championship. Constructors' Championship points are calculated by adding points scored in each race by any driver for that constructor." Duplicate use of ref 11.
• "as determined by a points system based on Grand Prix results." Duplicate points system link there. GeraldWL 07:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• "for F1 Manufacturers in 1958 and its current name"-- I'd have a comma there, to be "for F1 Manufacturers in 1958, and its current name".
• The header "Races" has ref 13. But below the table there is a sources footer. Should it be rather placed there instead?
• Recommend adding portals, and if a relevant Wikimedia Commons category exist, that's worth a link too, using Template:Commons-category inline.

That's all I have on this article. Well-composed, overall. As a short Image review, all have suitable license, appropriate captions, and have alt texts. GeraldWL 07:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Gerald Waldo Luis: Have made changes according to the queries mentioned above. What else needs addressing? MWright96 (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea

Nominator(s): --Ruling party (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated the list 1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea. It shows the composition of the communist leadership for a given period. I'm planning to nominate the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th as well.

I've also tried to give short historical summaries of the given period in question; what the communist leadership did and of course the steady accumulation of power by Kim Il-sung and the Kim family. Hopefully the eighth lists will be able to give the common folk a basic understanding of how Kim Il-sung became the Supreme Leader and how the country became the oxymoronic communist monarchy.

I'm happy to get any comments. --Ruling party (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - the hidden content thing isn't that big a deal I guess -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey discography

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This list is about the discography of Lana Del Rey, known by her admirers as one of the greatest living American songwriters, and by her detractors as one of the causes of Generation Z's glorification of depression. Whichever she is, you could listen to her music and have your own judgement. I have removed OR, unsourced, and unreleased songs from this list, and for now, I think it meets the FL criteria for being comprehensive and well sourced.

While I acknowledge I am having another FLC for MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year, since the FLC has gotten two supports, I feel like nominating this for FLC would not be against the advice. Any comment is very much appreciated. Thank you, HĐ (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Outside of my normal grumbling about the use of streaming services as a source, the sourcing is impeccable --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• "....and her debut studio album, Lana Del Ray (2010), under the name Lana Del Ray.[3] Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after.[4] In 2011, Del Rey self-released her debut single, "Video Games", under her current stage name Lana Del Rey" - it would be more succinct to simply say "and her debut studio album, Lana Del Ray (2010), under the name Lana Del Ray, a stage name she has retained ever since.[3] Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after.[4] In 2011, Del Rey self-released her debut single, "Video Games"."
  • Ignore the above, I hadn't noticed the ever-so-slightly different spelling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree it is hard to notice firsthand. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• "The single was certified multi-platinum platinum" - spot the stray word :-)
  • Removed. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• ""Lust for Life" (featuring The Weeknd)" - wikilink The Weeknd
  • Linked. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Del Rey released her sixth studio album, Norman Fucking Rockwell!, in 2019. Norman Fucking Rockwell! peaked atop" - is there a way to not repeat the album title twice in such quick succession?
  • Changed to "the album". HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Will look at the tables later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing to add on the tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your comments. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Please add ALT text for the infobox image.

• Done, HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to combine the last two sentences of the first paragraph? Something like As of August 2019, her albums have sold 3.2 million copies in the U.S. and her single sales in the U.K. have reached 5.2. million? I am recommending this as a way to avoid the repetition of the 2019 part, and that way you can clarify the U.K. single sales were also as of August 2019.

• Revised, HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• This part, Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after, seems incomplete to me. I know what the sentence means, but I am not certain if it is grammatically correct to end a sentence with the word "after", particularly in this manner.

• Reworded, but I'm not very confident with the new wording... HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would mention Violet Bent Backwards over the Grass in the lead.

• Added. Good catch. HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• On a similar note, should anything related to Chemtrails over the Country Club be mentioned in the lead?

• I think it is better to wait till the official release, cue WP:CRYSTALBALL, HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the list. I find your first comment to be interesting. I used to love Lana Del Rey (and she is still a huge influence on me), but for me at least, I became more critical of her after some questionable behavior, like that mask nonsense and not the "Generation Z's glorification of depression". But that's just me. I hope these comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My assessment of her as a "glorification of depression" is somewhat subjective and limited to her early releases only (I mean, look at the title of Born to Die... which was very provocative to me). I remember people around me describing her as "emo queen" or "sad pop queen" lol. But after 2015's "Lust for Life", I guess critics have appreciated her artistry more. I particularly enjoy her Ultraviolence songs and some songs off her newest album. Her mask thing was, however, quite a total turn-off for me at least (but I guess I'd have to "separate the artist and the art" if I want to listen to her music lol). Thank you very much for your comments. I have addressed them accordingly. Hope you have a great week ahead also! HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the prompt responses. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support, @Aoba47:. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate a lot if you could comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year/archive1. It's a rather short list so I believe it wouldn't take up a lot of time :P HĐ (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I will look through the FLC later this week if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support – I made a few edits to the list regarding captions and updating a few reference access-dates. Outside of that, I believe this FLC satisfies the featured list criteria. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Thank you for your support. HĐ (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

(Ref numbers as of this version; not all comments are necessarily about sources.)

• "Lana Del Ray has been pulled from music stores." – Raises more questions than it answers. Mention why as briefly as possible, or drop.

• Added. HĐ (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Why is Zobbel.de reliable—what are its authors credentials and what's its editorial process? Same questions for Charts in France and Aficia.

• I believe Zobble.de, as explained at WP:BADCHARTS, is licensed by the Official Charts Company-licensed Hit Music magazine. I am finding information on Charts in France and Aficia. HĐ (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Update. I am not very certain, but I think "Charts in France" monitors radio plays/internet hits, a-la-All-Access [1]. Cannot find much about Aficia, but from my experience with Taylor Swift articles, it was used to promote certain songs to radio by record labels [2]. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Recorded Music NZ can be linked in ref #86; Dazed can be linked in ref #72.

• Linked. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• What's the rule for whether the chart is linked in Footnotes? If it's to link on first occurrence only then I think a link to Billboard Hot 100 is missing.

• I link the charts on first instance. Added the link to the Hot 100. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• "WW" is not immediately obvious, so WW would be good on the first mention. Maybe also FRA as that's not a universal abbreviation of the country name (unlike UK and US).

• Added. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• The figures 1,174,000 and 1,608,000 are to four significant figures, which I think is likely false precision. Even the three significant figures numbers given the date of one of the sources in particular might be too much. I would prefer two significant figures (e.g. 1,170,000 and 1,600,000).

• Done. HĐ (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Spotchecks: 14, 23, 27, 43, 63, 75, 78, 82, 107, 109, 116, 117, 119, 122. #23 doesn't seem to cite the singles "As lead artist" table—I can change the search to "Song" to get some of them but not e.g. "Video Games" and "Summertime Sadness". (I can eventually navigate to e.g. [3] and [4] but can this links be given directly?). I don't think ref #107 takes me to where it should (https://www.irma.ie/#chartTab1 isn't "Irish Charts Week Ending 6 Sep 2019 Top 100"). Ref #109 says it's from 2012 but it doesn't say the song comes from Born to Die, does it?

• Fixed the Swiss chart link. I also replaced all Irish chart with the Hung Medien-powered site. I hope everything is okay now.

Looking very good overall. Couldn't find a wrong figure anywhere. — Bilorv (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the source review. HĐ (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy with the responses to all of the above. Fixed one typo here and I'm happy to support on sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Found it a smooth read and I think it satisfies WP:FLCR.--NØ 13:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

National recreation area

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Next in my series of protected places (after parks, monuments, memorials, and lakeshores and seashores) is recreation areas! I've only been to 5 of the 40 of these (and very near to another couple) but I sure hope to visit more! This was a fascinating bit of history as the concept of a place meant for recreation rather than conservation in a location that has been irreversibly changed by flooding really challenged and transformed the mission of the National Park Service. While they all combine recreation and preservation (with varying degrees of extractive uses), Congress got somewhat haphazard in designating these, and those managed by the Forest Service really differ in how much attention they get! I know the prose is longer than an average FL, but I think it's all interesting stuff that needs to be kept together. Looking forward to your comments. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Good to see this article get some attention and come up to standards of other related ones in the US. Comments based on a quick look:

• You only have NPS visitation, understandable given how easily accessible it is. The USFS does periodic visitation studies and publishes those results here. You may or may not be able to get estimates for those sites as well, but worth looking into. If so, it would require moving year into the column with visitation like "1,267,900 (2019)" for Amistad, since USFS ones are all the same years.
  • I hadn't seen this site, neat! Unfortunately are at the larger national forest level so there's not much on NRAs.
  • Added for the four that do have reports broken out. Reywas92^Talk 20:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Two of the photos a mostly just of one animal, Land Between the Lakes and Santa Monica Mountains. Would more of landscape photo be more appropriate for a recreation area, like the others?
  • These were actually the only ones that caught my eye! (LBL had no landscapes at commons and SMM was lacking what I liked.) I thought a little diversity is nice since wildlife is part of their recreation and conservation but if there's another you like I'm not attached to these! (A lot of these NRAs generally had poor image selection, so many boring rivers and trees, so if anyone has a better one for Pine Ridge or White Rocks or whatever, please share. Even flickr wasn't of much use.)
• The area column for Whiskeytown is a little difficult to read. Maybe insert some breaks in there.
  • Added
• It would be good to have alt text for all images.
  • Shoot, forgot those, added.
• There is at least one instance of inline citation out of order (at top of area column)
  • Fixed
• An excellent addition to this page would be a section with a list of former NRAs. I know it already exists on the NPS list page, but it would be very pertinent here. I am not sure if there are any others outside NPS.
  • Cuyahoga Valley NP is the only one, mentioned in the history section and I don't think needs its own section. None of the other FLs have this, it's just the main List of areas.

Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks so much Fredlyfish! Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, overall a nice work. There is so much prose that this could in fact be a valid FA candidate as well, but FL works fine. A possible improvement would be a footnote in Visitors (2019), explaining why some cells are empty - there is a line above but one has to look for it. Up to you. --Tone 14:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations

List of Victoria Cross recipients from the British 2nd Division

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In an effort to save space on the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, a series of sub-articles was created. This list documents the ~40 gentlemen who earned the Victoria Cross, while they served with the division throughout four different wars (the Crimean War, the Second Boer War, and the First and Second World Wars). I initially put this up reviewed at A-Class standard, but was advised to proceed to here. I look forward to feedback and improving the list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "published in the The London Gazette" - stray word there

  Thanks for the catch, and removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Does ref 1 cover the whole first paragraph

  Yes. I could split the ref into two, although it would then be one ref for the first three sentences and another for the final sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• "eighteen members of the division were earned VCs" => "eighteen members of the division earned VCs"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Refs look better centred, IMHO

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a difference between Lieutenant (Acting Captain) and Lieutenant (temporary Captain)?

  Yes, but I cannot explain the difference. The Gazette uses that wording for those individual's ranks. I have looked at various sources, but cannot offer an explanation to what the difference between each (the explanations I have seen are, for me at least, beyond confusing). I have seen examples of acting officers becoming temporary officers and vice versa.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• The article isn't linked in the template at the bottom. It should either be linked or the template removed

  I have added the article to the template.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the review and comments. I have attempted to address your concerns with either comments or tweaks to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – Whoever suggested posting this here had a great idea; this is a great list! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Further comment

• The table has been made sortable since I looked previously. I am afraid this means you will now need to wikilink any item that appears multiple times each time it appears, not just the first. Hopefully this can be done relatively painlessly with a search-and-replace...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  I have just made an edit to the article to add in links for everything. It looks really wrong to me lol. But, hopefully, this is the now in the correct standard for a list?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support (I fixed a redlink for you) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Image is freely licensed, per my evaluation at the ACR.[5] (t · c) buidhe 10:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• I am not sure that "Russian Empire" is a "country". I mean, you use "India" or "Colony of Natal", not British Empire.
• Why are we told that Natal is a colony. You don't use Republic of France' or 'Kingdom of Belgium'.

  I have not made changes in reference to either of these two point just yet. My understanding is that "Russian Empire" was the name of the state, the Crimea being part of it, and not one of the empire's colonies or territories outside of the core (i.e. Alaska, Finland, Poland etc.). I am more than happy to reword this, but I don't think "Russia" would suffice as it would appear to refer more to the modern state? I concede the point on Natal, I can change that to just Natal?

Russia was Russia before it was an empire, while it was an empire and after it ceased to be an empire. Just like Britain. If the fighting had been in Kent, not Crimeria, would you not have written "Britain", not "British Empire"?

That is a fair point. I have piped the link to the Russian Empire to just state Russia. Likewise, for Natal.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• For the hyphenated ranks see MOS:HYPHEN: "Do not use a capital letter after a hyphen except for a proper name".

  I just wanted to check in on this one, prior to making changes. The Gazette capitalizes both parts of the rank, and this is the way the rank is wrote in other sources. Would this not be considered a proper name then? Or, would that only apply if it was used in a sentence i.e. "blah blah Brevet-Major John Conolly..."? Checking in primarily for my own confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Bleh! Usually I am strong on the MoS, but you raise a good point - which I had missed - and the Gazette is the RS. False alarm, apologies, leave them as they are.

• Why do you give the departments for some locations - Oppy, Pas-de-Calais - but not others - Delville Wood?

  For Oppy, I had just left it alone based off the article name. I have piped it, so there is conformity.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• In cites 3 and 4, several uses of "p." should be 'pp.'.

  Thanks for the catch, I have fixed these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Victoria Cross Heroes" is missing a publisher location.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• As is "The Evolution of the Victoria Cross".

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Midas books" → 'Midas Books'.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "after the conclusion of hostilities, it was stood-down." I am not sure that "stood-down" is the appropriate expression. Eg, see Wikt:stand-down: A time when soldiers are not on alert.

  I have reworded this to disbandedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "It was again raised". Perhaps 'formed' instead of "raised"?

  Tweaked accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "so its forces could be reassigned elsewhere". "elsewhere" from where? (I suggest deletion.)

  Word removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "by soldiers who had been part of the division" → 'by soldiers who were part of the division'.

  Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "the division had not been in battle". "had" → 'has'.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A great list. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As always, thank you for your time in reviewing another article. I have attempted to address the majority of your comments, and left a few of my own were changes have not been made just yet.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1953

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

With 62 of these lists already at WP:FL and another having multiple supports and no outstanding issues, here's the next in the series. This particular year was dominated by Hank Williams, whose lifestyle finally caught up with him in the early hours of January 1. Ironically, he had just released a single called "I'll Never Get Out of This World Alive"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Great work as always. HĐ (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I can't find any faults --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Hungary

Nominator(s): Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hungary has 8 WHS and 11 sites on the tentatative list. The style is following the WHS lists that have been promoted so far. Since Greece and Cypruss are seeing good support so far, I am nominating a new list. Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not wishing to be a party pooper, but I've been told in the past (by the FL director) that an editor shouldn't have three FLCs open at one time, so it might be best to wait until either Cyprus or Greece has been promoted........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had three open if the other two had a strong support (which I interpret they have at the moment). But if this is a problem, this one can be put on stand-by. --Tone 21:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• You don't need "As of 2021", this isn't something rapidly going out of date.
• Budapest row has an extra column
• "within the Hungarian nation" is really weird, "of the Hungarian people" or something reads better. You're paraphrasing too closely to the source again.
• "erected to commemorate the thousandth anniversary of the conquest of Hungary in 896" is lifted straight from the source without even paraphrase. Please write everything in your own voice.
• "The Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century" again just copied.
• Esztergom should have a description even if the UNESCO site doesn't
• The external link should have (in Hungarian) after the link

Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• • @Reywas92: I think I'm done. I'd leave "as of 2021", since nominations at least are updated rather often in some cases, and new sites are added every year (not to every country, of course). Are you using some tool to find paraphrasings too close? I know there used to be one, that would be helpful in future. Thank you for the review! --Tone 10:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • No, I can just tell when the wording doesn't sound as natural like the above ("thousandth") and ctrl-F on the unesco site. There were others I found but these were the longest that needed to be changed. Noticing in your edit that Esztergom has been rolled into the newer Royal Seats nomination, I'm guessing it could just be deleted. I'm wondering if the Hungarian cultural office has its own site like [6]/[7] that has its own list rather than all sources being only to UNESCO. Anyway, Support, and a review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1 would be appreciated if you have a chance. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Well, sometimes the old nominations are removed by the committee and sometimes they persist. There does not seem to be a strict rule. But, as long they are listed on the UNESCO site, they should be here as well... I will have a look at the list you mention. --Tone 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Works for me, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Memphis Tigers head football coaches

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have created the article, it is comprehensive in the history of Memphis head football coaches, and has a lead that is well-sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - thanks for bearing with someone who knows little about the topic (although way back in my student days I was actually friends with someone who played for the university American football team. I was occasionally one of the 20 or 30 people (all friends of the players) who used to make up the "crowd" watching the game - that's how different university sport is in the UK :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Brooklyn Nine-Nine

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL-criteria. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - as an aside, writing the words "Anne Robinson" definitely brought back some mildly traumatising memories of when I was on The Weakest Link :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "The series has also received particular praise for its portrayal of serious issues whilst retaining a sense of humor." – That is a bit too far of a jump from the table alone; it needs a citation or should be removed.
• While not every award has its own page, the ones that do not can be wikilinked to a relevant article about the presenting organization or a section in that article (for instance, Motion Picture Sound Editors#Golden Reel Awards for MPSE Golden Reel Awards).
• Years for NAACP Image Awards can be wikilinked to specific ceremonies.
• Year and categories for TCA Awards can be wikilinked.
• Replace hyphens (-) with en dashes (–) for Gracie Award categories.
• For consistency with other categories at the same awards ceremony, change "Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series" to "Best Actor, Comedy" for the 2016 Poppy Awards.
• From a quick scroll through IMDb, 2020 Gracie Awards can be added (relevant source).
• Also from IMDb, I noticed the Imagen Awards are missing – I've seen those in similar lists, so consider adding them here if sources can be found.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: All of your suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! I changed one of the years for the Imagen Awards from 2018 to 2019 (I'm assuming it was a typo), but other than that, it's all top-notch work. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Mario role-playing games

Nominator(s): Panini^🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Mario franchise capitalized on the success of the role-playing video game genre in the 1990s, releasing Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and Paper Mario. Both series received critical acclaim, so why not keep going? Paper Mario proceeded to receive two more releases, with a new series, Mario & Luigi, being started for Nintendo's handheld consoles. However, these two series met a decline in the 2010s; Paper Mario started evolving to the action-adventure genre, and everybody hated it; the recent Mario & Luigi games saw less positive reception, and the developers, AlphaDream, went bankrupt in 2019.

Despite this, I'm still attempting to promote this list to FL; I recently had a peer review and further guidance from Alexandra IDV. Panini^🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments from Gerald Waldo Luis

I am supporting this! Not many problems, as I can see. No duplicate links, which is always an awesome thing. I do have some comments though; I think I missed these on the PR.

• "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though newer installments in the series, since Sticker Star, also incorporate action-adventure elements." Errr. Maybe change it to "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though installments in the series since Sticker Star also incorporate action-adventure elements."
• "...but changes to gameplay has received mixed reception between games, such as in combat and use of gimmicks." --> "...but changes to gameplay, such as in combat and use of gimmicks, has received mixed reception."

GeraldWL 09:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Both have been fixed. Thanks for your support! Panini^🥪 16:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts from Guerillero

• At 1.6 k, the leade is a bit short. Can you flesh it out some more.
• I'm not a fan of how much information is thrust into each cell.
  • Release years by system should be its own sortable column
  • Title should be sortable as well
• Visually, this looks like a bear for screen readers. Is {{Video game titles}} WP:ACESS compliant?
• "iQue Ltd" is not the page title
• You sometimes translate and sometimes don't translate article titles into English
• I don't see any quality problems with the sourcing

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is not my nomination, but responding to the points about the formatting and accessibility (not the content)-- this is the standard format for this type of list, which the FLC delegate PresN brought up in his "How to Write Featured Lists of Video Games" as accessibility-compliant. PresN, can you give input on this?--Alexandra^IDV 19:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I did write that guide almost 6 years ago, but yeah. To the best of my knowledge, this template format is ACCESS-compliant (feel free to double-check with them though!); it's just a wikitable behind the scenes, with col/row-scopes. I know the template format isn't every editor's favorite, but I've personally used it in... looks like 10 FLs? Latest was promoted in April 2019? And there are several by other people as well who've used it. Sortability is not a requirement for FL tables where it doesn't give benefit to the reader, and in lists like this it's not at all needed: each table is a video game subseries, presented in the order they were created (and not too long). There's no benefit to the reader to give the option to sort by alphabetical title instead of production order, any more than there would be in a table of television show episodes. --PresN 04:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

Bilorv, I believe I fixed these concerns. Do you spot any other formatting inconsistencies that I didn't? Additionally, although I've considered adding Puzzle & Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros. Edition but it's more of a compilation game with more rather than a unique game. I believe it's part of the navbox because it is still an RPG will Mario elements in it. Nintendo did not develop the game, they only blended their property. Panini^🥪 13:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll double check now if the rest of the fixes are good but there's still the first point left to reply to. — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Explained myself above. Panini^🥪 12:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to see how Puzzle & Dragons Z doesn't fit the scope of the list as established by the first sentence: The Mario franchise, which originated as platform games, has inspired a variety of role-playing video games (RPGs) released on multiple Nintendo video game consoles. Nintendo console, has RPG elements and features Mario, right? Two more things: I didn't mean that you have to link every work always, just works which have articles (I see that this was ambiguous), so Nintendo World Report, RPGFan, Square Enix Music Online and Video Game Music Database can be unlinked, or kept as redlinks if you think they're notable; and I'm not seeing that "First Paper Mario game in high definition" is verified by the new source either. Rest of the changes look good. — Bilorv (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, Added it in, fixed the changes, left Nintendo World Report linked as it has a chance of being notable. 13:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright great, happy to support now that these have been fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Mad Men

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In Mad Men's pilot, Don Draper notes that "advertising is based on one thing — happiness." Unfortunately, I can't come up with such a concise and elegant quip to explain the show to others, but what I can do – and what I've done – is bring this list up to FL standard to properly list its accolades so that others can better understand its achievements. The work I did was modeled on my West Wing FL nomination, taking this from an average page to what I believe is my best FL nominee to date. As always, any and all comments are appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - literally the only thing I could pick up on was.....if the awards are in alphabetical order, shouldn't the Primetime Creative Arts Emmys come before the Primetime Emmys.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I wanted the Creative Arts Emmys to be separate since they're awarded at a separate ceremony, but I also thought the major Emmy awards should be listed first (kind of like the awards for Game of Thrones, though that one is admittedly different given its length and that the Emmys are in a separate table). In other words, if I had combined the major and Creative Arts Emmys, I would have still put the series, acting, writing, and directing awards first, and I wanted to keep that order after splitting the two. If you think it would be better to swap them, I'd be happy to do it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • No, that makes sense, happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Found nothing. ~ HAL333 21:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Wraith: The Oblivion books

Nominator(s): Alexandra^IDV 05:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

My Changeling FLC was promoted, and my Mage FLC has four supports (still waiting for a source review), so here's my fifth World of Darkness FLC: the critically well received but commercially underperforming Wraith: The Oblivion, in the same format as the previous lists. As before, I appreciate any constructive criticism as I want to make these lists look as good as they can!--Alexandra^IDV 05:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing. You've got these down to a fine art now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I try to take comments from previous FLCs into account when working on these, so hopefully they'll just continue to go smoother and smoother.--Alexandra^IDV 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• The lead isn't long enough to be a DYK there has to be more to say about this series of RBG books --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Guerillero: Sorry, I'm unclear on how DYK is related? Did you mean to post this here?--Alexandra^IDV 06:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    I did. The lead is only 1324 byes (202 words). I don't think that is enough space to properly introduce the subject and define the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. I'm not looking for a 1k word treatment, but it should at the very least meet the 1500 byte lower limit for DYK. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

    • Just curious - do the DYK guidelines cross with the FLC guidelines for something like that, or is that more of a personal preference? BOZ (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

    • @Guerillero: What is it you feel is missing? You say the inclusion criteria is not defined, but I think it's very clear that it covers all the RPG books published for the game Wraith: The Oblivion. It also introduces the game (bearing in mind that this is a list of the books and not an article about the game itself) and describes what types of books were released, and how they were received. To be clear, I'm not trying to be "difficult" or avoiding doing the work - I don't mind expanding if you think something is missing - but I don't want to pad the lead with fluff to reach a threshold for a different Wikipedia process.--Alexandra^IDV 06:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

      I'm confused as to if this is a singular game or an expansion of another game. How does this game relate to the rest of the World of Darkness? Why are you playing as wraiths? I'm not looking for fluff but for context. (I also believe that the lead of an FL should have a small amount of heft to it. If the top Country songs of any particular year can have 3k bytes of text as a lead, any FL with enough context shouldn't be below 1.5k byes.) -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

      • @Guerillero: I apologize for the delay - I have been busy this month - but I believe I have addressed your concern. The lead is now just above 1.6K, and gives some more context and detail for how Wraith relates to the larger World of Darkness series, and how the series consists of horror games about supernatural beings. If you would take another look and see if there's anything else you think needs fixing, I would appreciate it a lot.--Alexandra^IDV 07:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• (ftr, if any of the FLC delegates/director are reading this, I'm working on addressing the above now that I know what specific questions Guerillero want answered - I have not abandoned this FLC).--Alexandra^IDV 00:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I've worked on a couple of featured lists of this sort, most recently List of awards and nominations received by Community (co-nomination). This one was more work than I expected—lots of notable awards that we didn't mention, some non-notable that we did, and a lot of challenges in some of the earlier awards where having a website was not quite universal yet. Our coverage of Page has received a lot of scrutiny post-their December 2020 announcement that they are transgender. Hopefully this FLC will be as calm and constructive as the others I've participated in. Comments about whether and how to address Page's deadname and previous gender identity are welcome, but may not be acted on immediately if it might be better to wait and get a fuller consensus. (There's been a tiny bit of talk page discussion about this so far.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

• Would suggest slightly more elaborate alt text for the picture - "2015 photograph of Elliot Page" for example

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• The wording of the table heading "Nominated work" feels slightly off since two of the items are Page himself. I don't write awards lists myself, so I don't know what the standard is, but the current solution does not look right to me.

  Replaced with a dash as suggested by ChrisTheDude. — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Since this is a list of awards and nominations, and not a filmography, try to ensure that roles you bring up in the lead are related to that - ie He served as a voice actor in the video game Beyond: Two Souls in 2013. is irrelevant on its own, without mentioning that he was nominated for his voice performance in it.

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good otherwise - please {{ping}} me when you have addressed the above or if you have any questions, and I will be with you asap!--Alexandra^IDV 02:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • For info, the recently-promoted List of awards and nominations received by Joaquin Phoenix uses a dash in the "nominated work" column where the actor was nominated as a person (for want of a better term) rather than for a specific work...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Think these are all addressed Alexandra IDV—thanks for the comments! — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you, I have confirmed the edits and made one more change (a MTV -> an MTV).--Alexandra^IDV 05:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support--Alexandra^IDV 05:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Endorse the above and add......
• In the "nominated work" column, Page's name should sort under P, not E

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• The result column sorts as Won > Runner-up > Nominated > 10th Place. I would suggest that 10th place should sort before nominated, as it is a result of some sort.

   Done Now sorts as "Won > Runner-up > 10th Place > Nominated" on a single click (rather than two). — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers Awards isn't linked - if it's not notable enough to have an article, does it belong here? Not sure what the general view on that is......

  When I looked at this I decided that it is notable, but just doesn't have an article yet. It seems like a similar organization to many of those listed, with a similar awards process. I can redlink it if you like? — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that you have replaced his name with a dash, but the dash oddly seems to sort under P. I would suggest it should just sort at either the top or bottom...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure, sorts at the top now. I made two conflicting changes at once with that one... — Bilorv (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Overall, this is a really good list. Just a few small things I noticed:

• I think the "Shared with..." footnotes would fit better in the category column (like footnotes g and h). This would help to distinguish these footnotes from the "Tied with..." footnote.

  You're right, this is better. — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Scrolling through IMDb, the only potentially notable awards I didn't see included were from film critics' associations, but I'm not worried about including all of those – I'll assume the major ones are here.

  Yeah I did check these and think all the major ones (and only the major ones) for which sources exist are there. — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Change Atlantic Film Festival to Atlantic Film Festival Awards and Primetime Emmy Award to Primetime Emmy Awards for consistency in first column.

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is this the article for source 2? If so, link it for easier verifiability. (Also, I think the title for that source is too long and accidentally includes the subheader.)
  • Same for this for source 36.
    • Yep, found them through ProQuest at The Wikipedia Library (good way to find sources that are otherwise paywalled) but these are the same sources—now linked. — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• 45th Saturn Awards (2019) can be wikilinked.

   Done — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

All addressed. Very useful feedback! — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason footnote g moved to the nominated work column? I thought it was fine where it was at, and now it conflicts with footnote h. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This was a just mistake—now fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Support – One more quick thought: Since "Premio Maguey" is Spanish for "Maguey Award", I think we should write "Premios Maguey" for consistency with pluralization. My mistake for not catching this earlier. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I am a Spanish GENIUS! I'll have to take your word for it on the Spanish being correct but brilliant catch, done. — Bilorv (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Some Dude From North Carolina

• Use the Cite rt template for the reference citing Rotten Tomatoes.
• Link the British Academy of Film and Television Arts in the reference titled "BAFTA: Games in 2014"
• The reference containing the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences should not be in italics, per consistency with other citations.

That's about it from me, as all the other references look great. Ping me when you have added comments. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: good eye for detail, all fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support on sourcing. Thanks for quickly addressing my suggestions! Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Impeccable list. Lead flows well. Information is thoroughly sourced. Comprehensive and informative. A small question (which does not impact my support in any way)--the Women Film Critics Circle sources are published on WordPress, which are flagged as unreliable. Does this mean the award is of marginal notability etc. ? HĐ (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  The source is fine as a self-published expert source if we accept that the award is important. Women Film Critics Circle does have an article and its members are all professionals and its awards are hence determined by experts so I think that gives it similar credence to many others on the list. WordPress is obviously not a great sign but bear in mind that those pages are from 2006 and 2009 so many big organizations didn't have websites that look great to a 2021 eye. — Bilorv (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominating a list after a while. I have worked on this important list and I feel it meets the criteria. Constructive feedbacks are welcome. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• I am a bit confused by some of the entries - almost all are for categories recognising the best film, and yet you list the nominee as a person?? As an example, I checked the source for 1989, and it just lists the winner of Best Foreign Language Film as "Salaam Bombay! (India)" - Mira Nair is not mentioned at all. Similarly the source for 2007 lists the winner of the same category as "Water (Canada)" - no mention of Deepa Mehta. On what grounds have you determined that those individuals were the nominees.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Fixed now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That's actually made it more confusing. You now have simply Howard's End listed, but that film was a US-UK-Japan co-production, so how does that make it an Indian nominee? In the case of the Best Picture Oscar, the award goes to the producers of the film (the source in this article confirms this), so your listing of Ismail Merchant as a nominee was in fact correct. So for categories where the producer wins it is OK to list the producer, but for best foreign film I think you should just name the film as that is what wins (this means you will need to find a source that confirms that Water was officially a Canada-India co-production, as the oscars.org source just lists Canada)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Done. Howard's End is produced by an Indian and since it was nominated for best picture, the producer should be mentioned. I have removed Water from the list per Shahid's comment as it was indeed nominated from Canada. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Shahid

• My first concern was going to be exactly the one raised by Chris, about the films that won the Best Foreign Film award (the director usually accepts the award but the official winner seems to be the country). Now that you've changed the winners, I'm not sure Water should be there because it represented Canada.

Hope its resolved now.

• In the case of Howards End, the producer's name should be there because it is the producer who wins the award.

Done

• It could be just me but I honestly think the name of the article should be changed because it's ambiguous: "List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees" - this wording makes it sound as though there is some sort of "Indian Academy Award", namely the award is Indian and not the winners and nominees. I think it should be "List of Indian winners and nominees of the Academy Awards".

The name is consistent with other similar lists like List of Canadian Academy Award winners and nominees and List of Pakistani Academy Award winners and nominees.

Still doesn't justify this ambiguous wording in my opinion (the pages you're citing are not recognised as featured content). What do you personally think about it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't think the name needs to be changed. There isn't any Indian Academy award, but there is one for television. Still, I would want ChrisTheDude to have a say on this. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• "have received or have been nominated" - the second "have" seems redundant to me.

Fixed.

• "11 Indians have been nominated for a total of 14 Oscars, six of whom have won seven Oscars." - is it your own calculation or there might be some source supporting it? Just wondering, no big deal if there isn't.

Tweaked. It's my own calculation per the entries. Since every entry is sourced in the list, I didn't source the sentence.

• I do not understand the "Scientific and Technical Awards" section - what's that? What were they nominated for?

@Shshshsh: - see Academy Scientific and Technical Award -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well then in this case it should be linked or be presented with introductory sentence. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have mentioned it in the lead. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Shshshsh Please have a look. I have hopefully resolved your queries. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher, I'm leaning support but just unsure about the name of the article. I wonder what others like Chris and yourself think about it, regardless of what other similar articles are named. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• As a song title, Jai Ho should be in quote marks
• "Several Indian Americans have received the Oscars in the technical category like Vanitha Rangaraju" - Ranagraju is not an Indian American according to her article - she was born in India and did not move to the US till she was 26 years old.
• You need to work in a link somewhere to Academy Scientific and Technical Award and also specify which award they won (there is more than one category)
• Film titles which start with A, An or The should sort based on the next word
• Can't see any reason for the note to be squashed into the left hand side of the page, it looks a bit silly IMO
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

All done except the forth one. I'm having some issue with the sorting. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

One more comment

• You have Vanitha Rangaraju listed in the "scientific and technical awards" section but you give the award as Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, which is not a technical award. The Oscar in that category is presented to the film's producer (in this case Aron Warner), not jointly to every single person who worked on it. I can't find any evidence that Vanitha Rangaraju was awarded an Oscar, and the source against her entry doesn't support it, it just says that the film won an Oscar and she was one of many people who worked on it. That's not the same thing at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Fully agree. I have removed the entry. Thanks for your comments. Can you please also address the 3rd query of Shshshsh? Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude and Shshshsh. Waiting for your response. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I can see the point that the wording is ambiguous/confusing. Changing it might be best -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Done now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think so too. I do not condition my support upon it. I support the nomination but strongly recommend the name change and I see that Chris is of the same opinion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro

• Tables have scope cols but not scope rows per MOS:ACCESS; add these to the recipient
• Tables also need headings
• Note cols don't need to be sortable
• Per WP:Sorting, individuals need to be sorted by their last names not their first, and films that start with "A, An, The, etc." need to be sorted by the next word (i.e. Creation of Woman not The Creation of Woman)
• Can we archive ref 1, 25, and 29?

Rest looks good for me. – zmbro _(talk) 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1952

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

With 62 of these lists now at WP:FL, here's my next nomination, covering the year 1952. In this year, one of the most famous answer songs in country history became the first million-seller in the genre for a female artist and Hank Williams ended the year at number one; he would die in the back seat of his car just hours later. As ever, any comments will be responded to in as timely a manner as I can manage. Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support ~ HAL333 17:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Support – I made a few changes to the grammar, but other than that, it all looks really good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• AFAICT, table captions are accepted practice at FLC now, because of the recent-ish RfC, so I added one. Let me know if that's wrong.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done some trivial copyediting and avoided some redirects in the table; 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 (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. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it satisfies FL criteria. Information in this list is sourced (which is rather easy given MTV's comprehensive archives), and it is also informative regarding the awards' history and selection. Any comment will be very much appreciated. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Eminem holds the record for the most nominations, with seven nominations as a solo artist" - are the words "as a solo artist" actually needed here?

• There is one extra nomination as a group member of D12, so I think it's better to include "as a solo artist", HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, I missed that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• "For artists who are not from the U.S." - I think "Among artists who are not from the U.S." would be better, personally

• Fixed, HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Road to Nowhere is missing it closing quote mark

• Added, HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• "David Lee Roth (1985), U2 (1988), and Lady Gaga (2010) are the only performers to have two Video of the Year nominations in one night" - Missy Elliott had two in 2001, Rihanna had two in 2012, and Kendrick Lamar had two in 2015 as well

• Curiously MTV (apparently) does not count featured/guest appearances. For instance, the "Telephone" (Lady Gaga ft. Beyonce) win for Best Collaboration was counted for Gaga only ([8]). Revised "as a lead artist", HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• In 2013 there's a random stray curly bracket at the end of the first nominee

• I think it's fixed now, HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments! I have responded as above. HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ashleyyoursmile

• I think the first link on MTV should be on ref 2 and not on ref. 6. Accordingly, any target on MTV should be removed from subsequent references.
• Link on Billboard should be removed from refs 8 and 43, since its already linked on ref 5.

Great work with the list. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I have added wikilinks to all references, as it does not constitute WP:OVERLINK. HĐ (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying. I support this for promotion. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• In the lead, you have both 2019 and 2020 as years that You Need to Calm Down was awarded. According to the table, it looks like the 2020 one at the end of the second paragraph is incorrect.
  • Whoops, corrected. HĐ (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• According to WP:LAYOUT, the see also section should go before the notes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comments. I have addressed them accordingly, HĐ (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would encourage you to add ALT text to the MTV logo in the infobox.

• Added. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• For this part, is the most prestigious competitive award, is it necessary to clarify that it is a competitive award? I know the VMAs do honorary awards, like the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, but I am uncertain this clarification is really necessary.

• I think it could be removed altogether. I don't think keeping it as merely the most prestigious would be convincing given that the Vanguard is more (or less) celebrated. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is more of a clarification question, but does this award only go to the performer(s) and not the music video director or anyone else associated with production?

• Yes, the award goes to the performers, as indicated at MTV's archive list. The directors/producers have their own category (Best Direction/Editing/Cinematography, if I am correct). I was kind of surprised to find out so, but I guess that's probably why the MTV VMAs are more popular than the Grammys for Music Videos in terms of teen popularity. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation! That was what I got from the list, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk)

• I think this part, the winners are determined by viewers' votes through MTV's website, would read better like, viewers vote for the winners through MTV's website, as it would put it in the active tense and avoid having two similar sentences in a row.

• I think it's okay to keep it as it is, to make in consistent with the previous sentence's wording. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Understandable. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• For parts like these, Eminem with "The Real Slim Shady" (2000) and "Without Me" (2002), I would think it should be "for" not "with" as those artists won the awards for these videos.

• Fixed. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. My suggestions are very nitpick-y as the list is already very strong. It is interesting to think about how the VMAs (and award ceremonies in general) have changed over the years. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and far more out of touch with new music trends, but I did not even watch or remember much of the last VMA show lol. Either way, I will support this when my comments are addressed, and I hope you are having a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them accordingly. Your help is always very much appreciated! HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am glad that I can help. I support this list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Wales national football team results (1960–1979)

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Number five in the series. Once again, thanks to HawkAussie for their work on the table conversion. The format follows the same style as the previous four lists which have all gone up for FL status. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Their first match of the period was a 3–2 victory over Northern Ireland secured a...." - think there's at least one word missing here
• "The second leg at Ninian Park proved controversial while crowd trouble led Wales...." - was the game controversial because of the crowd trouble? The word "while" kinda implies that it was controversial for a different reason but then you don't say what that was......
• "For the 1976 tournament, quarter-finals were played" - should this be "the quarter-finals"?
• "....with the finals hosting only the semi-finals and beyond" - reads very oddly - the finals hosted the semi-finals?
• "The 1966–67 and 1967-68 British Home Championship was used" => "The 1966–67 and 1967-68 British Home Championships were used"
• "would qualify for the UEFA Euro 1968" - the Euro 19XX name style was not in use at the time, this should just say 1968 UEFA European Football Championships. Also, this note is missing its full stop.
• Having a webpage covering Scotland's international results as a general ref seems a bit weird
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks as ever for the review. I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know what you think, cheers. Kosack (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a reference for Note b?
• What happened to the usual note saying: "Table information sourced from the references listed in the statistics section below"?

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 17:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Thanks for taking a look. I've amended both points above. Kosack (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 14:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Harry Styles discography

Nominator(s): Ashleyyoursmile! 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating Harry Styles discography for featured list because it is sourced, well-organised, and easy to navigate through. I have spent quite some time in expanding and cleaning up the article, which I now believe meets the featured list criteria. This is my first featured list nomination and also my first time working on a discography. For reference, I've used both Meghan Trainor discography and Bruno Mars discography. I look forward to the comments. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Support – top-notch work, especially for a first FL and first discography. Nice job! RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "he left its management and signed a recording contract" - I would omit the bit about the management, it's pretty trivial
• "both of which became top-ten hits on several single charts" => "both of which became top-ten hits on several singles charts"
• "Styles became the first British male artist to have two first albums" - "two first albums"? Not sure what this means

• I changed it to "first two albums". Does it read alright now? Ashleyyoursmile! 18:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• It should have been his first two albums. I have fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• You're right. My bad. Thank you for the fix. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Notes which are sentence fragments should not have a full stop. This applies to A, B, C, D.
• That's all I got on a first pass - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hello ChrisTheDude, thank you for the comments. I've implemented all the changes. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from MaranoFan

• Support - I have read it a few times and determined that it meets the criteria.--NØ 02:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support, MaranoFan! Ashleyyoursmile! 05:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from HĐ

• Avoid phrasings like "commercial success"/"moderate success" as it is potentially POV. Mentioning chart positions should be sufficient for readers to understand how successful the single(s) was/were

• I have removed "commercial success" completely, and rephrased the "moderate success" part. I don't think chart positions for these two singles deserve to be mentioned. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• "quintuple platinum" → "five times platinum" is easier to understand

• changed. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Otherwise the list is ready for FL. Great work! HĐ (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments, HĐ. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

With only one factual inaccuracy (if I'm correct about that one) in the spotchecks and no sources I could identify as unreliable, it's looking very good, but I hope the comments above can make it even better. — Bilorv (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bilorv, thank you for the comments. I've implemented some of them and left comments for the rest. Let me know what you think. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I won't be happy to support with the linkrot issues remaining, though it's not enough to oppose over either. I suppose that puts me at Neutral for the time being and another source review would be needed for this nomination to pass. I'm not assessing things based on FLs promoted in 2012 or whether something is a template or whether a WikiProject considers something okay, but by the featured list criteria as applied to the rendered output of the page (and this touches on stability and verifiability). You may think "of course the BPI website isn't just going to go down" but I've seen enough broken references added to Wikipedia in 2005 by people making similar assumptions to think that it is a possiblility worth taking into account. Thank you for applying the other suggestions I made and for your improvements to the list. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bilorv, so I worked hard and linked all the BPI certifications separately to the respective pages, like you suggested. Just one thing, I haven't been able to archive three ref.s: "Kiwi", "Golden", and "Sweet Creature", the wayback machine is taking a lot of time to archive these manually. Can you please run the bot and fix these, if that's not a problem? Otherwise, I'm going to try tomorrow. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've tried to change the Italian citations too—please make fixes or let me know if any of these have mistakes in them. You can use IABot by clicking "Fix dead links" in the page history (which also runs automatically periodically, see IABot). It fixed two of those but doesn't like "Golden" (nor does Wayback Machine directly), so it's fine to leave this be—maybe next time the bot runs it'll work it out. Not including a paragraph about accolades is personal taste so I'm happy to Support. — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bilorv, thank you very much for the support, and for changing the Italian sources. I've archived the ref. for "Golden" manually and formatted the Italian citations for consistency. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltar national football team results

Nominator(s): 6ii9 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a full list of official matches played by the Gibraltar national football team since their acceptance into UEFA that I believe meets the FL criteria. The matches are grouped by the years they were played making it easy to navigate. As they started in 2013 there will be no need to split the article for a few years yet. Each entry is comprehensively detailed and referenced (one ref tag and a link to an external match report).

It is my first time nominating an article for featured status but I am prepared to do what I can. I did get the article peer reviewed first where Aza24 was kindly able to help. I look forward to the responses. — 6ii9 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Any reason why the list format is totally different to existing similar FLs, such as the recently-promoted Wales national football team results (1946–1959)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • An advantage to using the football box template is it allows more information to be included (similar to the Faroe Islands results list that is currently an FL). If it is needed to be in table form I can convert. --6ii9 (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    • That list was promoted ten years ago, so doesn't necessarily indicate current consensus. I'll leave this out here to see what other people think....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
      • WikiProject Football has its own manual of style, and looking at this section, it seems that the accepted way to list match results is with those templates. Also, I quickly scanned through similar lists in Category:National association football team results by team, and everything I saw as I scanned through them (minus the Welsh lists) uses that formatting, so I'm pretty much certain it's the standard. It does mean there is no sorting functionality, but I'm personally okay with it because it allows much more information to be included about individual matches that would either disappear or be awkwardly included in a list like the Welsh lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
        • While the collapsible format seems to have become the most prevalent, this is likely due to the majority being mass produced by a minority of editors. The most recent discussion at WP:FOOTBALL largely suggested that the table format is actually more favourable as it is far more inline with WP:ACCESS. Kosack (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - while my personal preference would be for the article not to contain dozens of collapsible templates, if it is deemed an acceptable format I am not going to oppose based on that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kosack's comment, I'm going to have to oppose on the tables. The collapsible tables may allow you to contain more information, but they do not meet WP:ACCESS. Users who need screen readers to use Wikipedia will not be able to read the page as well as users who are normal sighted. Kosack links to the discussion at WP:FOOTY which suggests that the tables used in the Wales ar preferable because they meet MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS. Unfortunately, as long as those tables are in use, I can't support the promotion of this list. NapHit (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Table looks in much better shape now, struck my oppose based on that. I think the key needs to be in a table too. Look at the Wales lists for an example. I am concerned about the references though. Firstly you need to use en dashes instead of the standard dashes for scorelines. Ref 13 is an example. Secondly, it's questionable whether some of the references are reliable or not. What makes yourgilbraltartv and footballgibraltar.wordpress.com reliable? NapHit (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Looking through the article, I do think that the table format is suitable in this featured list scenario as WP:ACCESS is a massive issue from this getting past the featured list challenge. I also do think that adding the cards is a bit of an overkill as you don't see many other articles (if any) in the national results section have the cards as well as the goals.

In terms of prose, I do feel its fine except the last three sentences in the prose as why is that needed here as that doesn't relate to the article either. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I have rewrote the final paragraph to remove the sentences unrelated to the article. --6ii9 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I have now converted the collapsible boxes into a table. --6ii9 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Not sure if anyone else is having this problem, but on my computer the score column cells are black-colored, which doesn't appear to be the intention and makes it hard for me to read the scores. I suggest changing the formatting to be like the Wales list linked above, as the colors appear without issue for me on that page.
  • @Giants2008: I do not have this issue. I have looked at the Wales list above and cannot see why that one renders correctly for you but this one does not. I can only assume it is the colours being used. 6ii9 (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I've made this table comparing the colours used in each of the lists. Are any of these cells rendering as black-coloured? --6ii9 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • For me, the Gibralter win and loss cells, and the Wales draw cell, are black. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I've used the colours that should now stop rendering as black. --6ii9 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Colour comparison

Result	Wales	Gibraltar
Win	1–0	1–0
Loss	0–1	0–1
Draw	1–1	0–0

• Note b needs "to" before "the coronavirus pandemic." Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I have added the missing "to" in note b. --6ii9 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "which was rejected" on what grounds?
• "for full membership" was partial membership a thing?
• "friendlies" link.
• "in Faro/Loulé," this is odd so I'd explain it a tiny bit.
• " in Faro/Loulé, Portugal which " comma after portugal.
• "which became their official debut." Gibraltar's official debut.
• Probably worth noting in the lead how it ended.
• "Gibraltar entered its first major international competition:" how did it go?
• " joint largest victory" I'm not sure 1-0 and 2-1 are equitable here, and in any case, it's the minimal "winning margin" possible!
• I think the Att column should be right-aligned.
• "Gibraltar scorers" also "time of goal".
• Check all the sources for "behind closed doors" actually mention it. E.g. ref 59 for match 47 doesn't mention attendance at all.
• Score column sorts peculiarly, I'd expect it to start with "best wins" then go through draws to "worst losses".
• Are the flags necessary?
• Compare ref 2 BBC Sport with ref 3 BBC Sport format.
• Scorelines in ref titles should be en-dashes.
• FIFA.com or FIFA?
• Link publishers always or not?
• TheGuardian.com or The Guardian?
• Avoid using Daily Mirror. Not particularly RS.

That's a quick pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Filmography of Stanley Kubrick

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list of Stanley Kubrick's films. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest directors. ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

• The second lead paragraph has an issue with repetitive "He directed A. Then he directed B. Then he directed C. Then he directed D." type of writing, especially in the beginning where we list off his documentaries and first feature film one by one.
• While the unfinished film may have been named by Kubrick after Pinocchio, linking the article on the character here gives one the impression that the link will take one to an article about the unfinished film - especially as it is italicized like a title. I would suggest unlinking it.
• The wording of the annotation Also editor, director of special effects, and breathing sounds read literally means that Kubrick was the breathing sounds rather than that he made them
• Looks good otherwise. Please ping me when you have addressed the above and I will take another look.--Alexandra^IDV 10:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV I've worked on the prose. ~ HAL333 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support on prose, although I am unsure re: the concerns over criterion 3c that RunningTiger123 brought up.--Alexandra^IDV 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally support on 3c with the addition of the reception list--Alexandra^IDV 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

The only thing I can add to the above is that the prose is a bit choppy in places, with short sentences which could be joined together, e.g. "His final film was the erotic thriller Eyes Wide Shut starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. The film was released posthumously in 1999" - that seven-word sentence could easily be joined to the previous one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV, ChrisTheDude I have done some work addressing the 3c issues. ~ HAL333 21:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – With the addition of a reception section, this page now has enough information to stand on its own, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• My first thought when I started reading was that it would be really difficult to write a good lead for a Stanley Kubrick list ... he went in so many different directions in his career. But you did it, and made it hang together ... well done.
• I don't have a preference, but "Dr. Strangelove" (as a film title, not a person) is normally alphabetized under D rather than S (and this is where you put it in the second table, but not in the first). In the second table, A Clockwork Orange should be filed under C, not A. Also, don't alphabetize these under "The": The Killing, The Seafarers, The Shining. Otherwise, the coding in the table seems fine.

Addressed. ~ HAL333 19:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss.
• 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 good 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) 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• General: I think the formal awards he received for his work are more important than the critical reception from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, so I'd expect to see all those nominations and awards listed in a table here. Ok, it's listed as a "See also". Perhaps put {{main}} at the top of the section instead?
• "13 feature films and three" comparable figures should be all words or all numbers.
• "It was Kubrick's last film that he did not also write" the table seems to imply he was a writer on Lolita but just not credited.
• "2001 garnered ..." we're encouraged to avoid starting sentences with a numeral...
• You mention Vladimir Nabokov but not Anthony Burgess?
• The lead talks about critics but doesn't seem to relate to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, I mean for example FMJ which is pretty iconic, and that's related in the second table but not mentioned at all in the lead.
• Check references for those which require subscriptions (e.g. the NYT) which need url-access=subscription adding to the cite template.
• Ref 5 -> "The" Independent.
• Ref 54, The Guardian is a work.
• Why is "British filmographies" a category?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by BoJack Horseman

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that the article is well-written, comprehensive, and has everything needed for a list-article to pass the FL-criteria. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

• The picture of Schaal lacks alt text
• Is there any reason why IndieWire is not italicized?
• Link depression and addiction the first time they are mentioned (and not on later mentions)
• Looks good otherwise - ping me when you have responded to the above.--Alexandra^IDV 12:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Alexandra IDV: I have added alt text to the main image and fixed the links of depression and addiction in the lead. However, IndieWire is a publisher, and as a result, shouldn't be italicized. Other than that, all your other suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the edits and the clarification, I have confirmed that everything has been resolved.--Alexandra^IDV 13:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support--Alexandra^IDV 13:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "an American adult animated tragicomedy sitcom" is a bit of a sea of blue. Any way to break this up?
• Actually I think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: I tried adding a hyphen to "adult animated" and moving "sitcom" to the next sentence to address the issue. If you would like it a different way, feel free to ping/message me back. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Some Dude From North Carolina: that works except that you should not have a hyphen in "adult-animated". "Adult-animated" would indicate "animated by adults" rather than "animation aimed at adults". Presumably it is indeed animated by adults but I don't believe that's what you mean :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Issue has been fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments: The sourcing and formatting for this list are good – my only comments there are that the BTVA Awards are not really notable and there is an NAACP Image Award that could be added. However, I'm concerned about the list's length. ~40 items isn't very long, and it could probably fit into the Bojack Horseman article without issue. Indeed, looking back at that page's history, it seems that the list was already there in mostly the same condition (just sorted by year instead of award) until you created this page, and I can't find any discussion from you or other users on the talk page about splitting the awards section into its own article. There's no set cutoff for a standalone awards list, but past discussion has indicated that anywhere from ~30 to ~50-60 awards should be the minimum required for a standalone list. I think we should try to clear this up and establish what that lower boundary should be, and then we can figure out if this should be its own page. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Per your suggestions, the Behind The Voice Actors Awards have been removed and the NAACP Image Award nomination has been added. About the status of this list in general, I just want to point out that per your own reasoning that "anywhere from ~30 to ~50-60 awards should be the minimum required for a standalone list", this list already has a reason to stay without any discussion. Additionally, a short list, such as the one for awards received by Carnivàle, can reach FL-status, so length isn't an issue. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify my point: I was trying to say that some people thought the cutoff should be set around ~30 awards and some thought it should be around ~50-60. This list clears the former but not the latter, which is why I wanted to try to settle this. As to the Carnivàle list, that's really not the gold standard for FLs; it either needs a major overhaul or to be delisted. (As a side note, the reviewers even let the infobox contradict the lead; one says 10 wins/33 noms and the other says 9/21. FL nominations were certainly different back then.) At any rate, I don't think it's the standard we should look to set a precedent for today's FL nominations. In short, I am still concerned by length and think it could possibly go back into the Bojack Horseman article. I would really like to get others' opinions on this, though. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

I just watched the first episode of this, and it was.... fine. After all my comments got resolved, I'll support this.

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I have added comments to your suggestions. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice job making the publisher thing in no time (if I were you I'd procrastinate four months). I now support this. I would suggest a portal bar, but that doesn't affect FLCs; feel free to do it or not. But personally I love putting portal bars. GeraldWL 14:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Love the idea! Portals have been added. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

Noice! See ya in another nomination 30 years later, when I will nominate List of accolades received by Interstellar an FLC. GeraldWL 15:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I think since you've mentioned that BoJack is an anthromorphic horse, it's worth noting the other characters' species too as to a non-expert they might just assume all the other characters are human. Or horses.
• "of Sarah Lynn" there's no context or description for this character, just a name.
• "Kristen Schaal's portrayal of Sarah Lynn ..." is a complete sentence, needs a full stop.

That's it. Good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina 21:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

List of NHL game sevens

Nominator(s): –Piranha249 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria necessary for such a nomination, including comprehensiveness, prose, structure, and style. –Piranha249 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Kaiser matias

Not an overall review of the article, but I want to mention that Note A is not fully correct. While the 2-2-1-1-1 schedule is used now, it has not always been the case. For example, 1994 the Western Conference some series used the 2-3-2 format, including one on this list (1994 Maple Leafs-Sharks). Thus I would suggest re-wording the note. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The first two paragraphs in the lead need sources since they are discussing information not included in the table.
• Images need alt text.
• I would suggest using a different format for footnotes, such as Template:Efn. This would allow the footnotes to pop up by hovering over the note, similar to references, instead of forcing the user to click the link to another section.
• Use Template:See also for link to List of NHL overtime game sevens (though I don't think that list is even necessary... an AfD may be in order for that list since all of the information it covers is in this list).
  • Edit: After further consideration and review of that list, I decided to change it to a redirect to this list per WP:CFORK and WP:BOLD. This means the "See also" link should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• The green boxes and ^ symbols are not needed to denote game seven in the Stanley Cup Finals. Writing "Finals" in column 2 already conveys the same information without cluttering the table with more symbols.
• Don't use small font for Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum Arena – just make the column wider. (Generally, smaller fonts should be avoided for accessibility reasons.)
• The wikilinks in column 2 seem inconsistent. I see that you've avoided duplicate wikilinks for the same playoffs, but I think it would be better to have the links in every row and to distinguish the links by linking to specific sections. So, for example, the 2019 first round could link to 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs#First Round instead of just 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs and the 2019 second round could link to 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs#Second Round.
• The ∞ symbol and notes b/c are redundant. If the game is at a neutral site, obviously the winner was the designated home/road team when they won instead of actually being at home/on the road.
• Use Template:Abbr to show that "Ref." in the last column means "References".

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123, I've done several of your suggestions, such as using Template:Efn and Template:Abbr. But I did run into issues with others:

• The Green boxes were originally used in the NBA Game sevens article, also a featured list. Should that be in question, too?
• What's the perfect width for Venue column?
• How else is people supposed to know who was the designated home/road team in a neutral site game?

I'll look for sources wherever possible for the article lead. Now that the NFL season is over as of Sunday, this list will be one of my top priorities. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

To explain some of my points:

• While the NBA list uses the boxes, I'm not a huge fan of it. Why say something twice when we can say it once? In my opinion, the additional green boxes and ^ notes get in the way and disrupt readability without adding anything new – the round is already noted in the second column – so we should remove them. Also, the NBA list was approved over 10 years ago, so I don't think it fully represents current FL standards.
• I don't know what the "perfect width" is – there's no right or wrong answer as long as the table still fits comfortably on the page.
• If a game is marked with the ∞ symbol, then a red row would indicate the winner was the designated road team and a white row would indicate the winner was the designated home team. Alternatively, if a winning team is marked with note b or c as the designated home/road team, the game must have been played at a neutral site. Either way, one of the two symbols can be removed – the latter probably does a better job. Again, why say something twice?

–RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I endorse all of the above and add.....

• "Since its opening in 1968, eight game sevens have been played at the Madison Square Garden." - being British, I am no expert, but isn't it just called "Madison Square Garden" rather than "the Madison Square Garden"?
• Shouldn't the latest name of the Winnipeg Jets (I) / Phoenix Coyotes be shown? Or are you only showing names under which the franchise played a game 7?
• Think that's all that hasn't already been mentioned....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude, I've updated the MSG caption, and will do the same for the Coyotes. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• As per RT123's comments, paras 1 and 2 of the lead still need sourcing
• I also agree that the green box and symbol aren't needed given that "Finals" is noted in column 2
• Small text is still present - it should just be normal text
• I also agree that if the infinity symbol is used to denote a neutral site game then notes b and c aren't needed. Or else get rid of the symbol and just keep the notes, in which case remove the full stops from the notes, as they are not complete sentences....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude, Is there a way to retract this featured list nomination, at least until I get all those issues resolved? I plan on renominating it when that happens. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Well, if you really want to withdraw, you just have to state that here and one of the directors will close the nom. But TBH the outstanding issues aren't major, they should be resolvable within the timeframe of this FLC..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

    ChrisTheDude, Thanks, I won't withdraw after all. But I'll have to find sources for those paragraphs sooner or otherwise ask for help. ���Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

    • Well, at a quick glance I would say this covers basically the whole of para 2...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

51st Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2021 (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, 2019, and 2020 ceremonies were written. Please keep in mind that because this ceremony happened earlier than in recent ones that I did, the format of how I configured this list resembles more closely to the 1st Academy Awards rather than say the 71st Academy Awards and such. Birdienest81 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• "Academy Honorary Awards"

The text following each of the recipients seems to be quotations. If so it should be within quote marks. (There is a quote mark at the end of the Laurence Olivier text, but not at the beginning.) However, note MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Also the MoS says of quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.

• Fixed: Added quotation marks accordingly.

• "Multiple nominations and awards"

"The following 14 films had multiple nominations"; "The following three films received multiple awards". This would seem to breach MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".

• Fixed: Wrote out fourteen as a word instead of numerals.

That doesn't really address my concerns around MoS compliance. Could you re-read the two extracts from the MoS above - on minimising the use of quiotations and on attributing opinions in line - and either tweak the article to comply or let me know why you think it already complies? (Or should be an exception.)

• @Gog the Mild: The reason why I am using direct quotes is because in a previous FLC for another Oscar ceremony list, one of the reviewers demanded that I included a rationale for why the individual received the specific honor. They said that linking the title of the awards in the header is not compatible with the MOS, and that each individual honorary awardee have different reasons for receiving the award. So I am using the direct quote that was provided by the Academy to justify the rationale of the award.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a brief explanation of why each recipient of an honorary award is there is entirely sensible. Unfortunately, your using quotations to do so breaches two parts of the MoS. So far you haven't explained why not adhering to the MoS is be appropriate in these cases. It would seem to me that the simplest approach would be to paraphrase each quotation into your own words, which would cause the issues to disappear. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Fine, I did paraphrase the explanations for the Honorary Oscars in my own words. It should be close as possible to the original statements.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Lead

"The Beverley Hilton". Why the upper case T. Eg see here.

• Fixed: Removed the "The" from the name.

• "Ceremony"

"Three days earlier ... on April 6" Do we need both of these?

• Fixed: Removed the date.

"Initially the Academy's music branch protested that the segment be dropped from the ceremony, but it was kept intact after" I am not sure that "intact" is needed.

• Fixed: Removed the word "intact."

"It was also remembered". "was" → 'is'.

• Fixed: Changed was to is.

" This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, presenter of the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger as well as the father of the producer, as he died on June 6 of that year." 1. Suggest a comma after "Bolger". 2. Suggest 'being' after "as well as".

• Fixed: Added accordingly.

• "Winners and nominees"

"Academy president Howard W. Koch an actress Susan Blakely." "an" → 'and'.

• Fixed: Changed "an" to "and".

The Beatty/Welles sentence: suggest splitting into two, with the section in parentheses as a separate sentence.

• Fixed: Split the sentence into two.

"Best Supporting Actress winner Maggie Smith became the only person to win an Oscar for playing an Oscar loser" Optional: add in which film.

• Fixed: Mentioned California Suite.

Overall it is in good shape. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Addressed all the comments. Thank you.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Birdienest81, that satisfies me on everything except my first comment on quotations, where I have given a little more information. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicely done. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Downtown Los Angeles may be a more relevant link in the "Ceremony" section.

• Fixed: Wikilinked Downtown LA and removed California to avoid redundancy.

• Is there any way you could restructure the sentence Orson Welles had previously been nominated for writing, directing, and starring in Citizen Kane, but though he also produced it and it was nominated for Best Picture, the studios, rather than the producers, were the official nominees of that category at the time.?

• Fixed': Changed the sentence that readsWhile Orson Welles had previously achieved the same feat for Citizen Kane, rules at the time determined that the studio releasing the film, as opposed to the individual producers, were the official nominees for Best Picture.

That's all I noticed. ~ HAL333 23:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: I have addressed all the comments and responded with the appropriate fixes.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 14:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Very nice. Reywas92^Talk 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose at the moment.

• "the Beverly Hilton " "the" is part of the name of the hotel.
• "The Deer Hunter won five awards" needs reiterating we're talking about the main ceremony as the previous sentence was talking about the technical awards.
• "late night" should be hyphenated.
• " the father of the producer" which producer?
• "February 20, 1979 by" comma after 1979.
• "became the only person" perhaps "first" as the source is 1993, are we sure it hasn't happened since?
• Why wouldn't an Oscar-winning producer be notable? E.g. John Peverall?
• "Music and Lyrics" any good reason Lyrics is capitalised?
• Some of the references (e.g. ref 25) are geographically limited, so should use the url-access=limited parameter.
• Others require subscription (e.g. WaPo) so that's url-access=subscription required.
• "Multiple nominations and awards" tables row scopes and captions please.
• Same for "Presenters and performers" tables, which also require col scopes.
• ISBNs are inconsistently formatted.
• I don't see any mention in the prose about ratings for the show.

That's a very quick blast through. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Curtiz filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Michael Curtiz, one of the most prolific film directors during the golden era of motion pictures. Among his many credits are Mystery of the Wax Museum, Captain Blood, The Charge of the Light Brigade, Kid Galahad, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Angels With Dirty Faces, Four Daughters, The Sea Hawk, The Sea Wolf, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Casablanca, Mildred Pierce, Life With Father, The Breaking Point, White Christmas, and King Creole. I did a major overhaul of his filmography and want to make it a featured list. Please help me achieve that if you can. Jimknut (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

The banner at the top saying "This article currently links to a large number of disambiguation pages (or back to itself)." is not a good start - can you address that (or remove the banner if it has already been addressed)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like somebody took care of that already. Someone fixed the disambiguation links last night. The banner has been removed. Jimknut (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• "whose filmography spanned from 1912 to 1961" - I think "whose career spanned from 1912 to 1961" would be better
• "During this period he directed, whole or in part," => "During this period he directed, wholly or in part,"
• There's a gap between the full stop and ref 2
• "The latter film was released in England" - I'd imagine it was released in the United Kingdom, not just England
• "For his contribution to cinema, Michael Curtiz was awarded" - no need to repeat his first name
• Think that's it on the lead, I will look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Revisions made per your suggestions. Jimknut (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 19:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments a nice piece of work, some bits and pieces:

• Several duplinks in the lead, e.g. sound film, two-color Technicolor, James Cagney, film noir and Vistavision.
• " worked in CinemaScope.[2] He worked in" mildly repetitive.
• Isn't the plural of "film noir" actually "films noir"?
• "Hungary's Royal Academy of Theatre and Art" looks notable, do we have a hu-wiki article we can {{ill}} to?
• " drama, Maés Holnap ("Today and Tomorrow", 1912).[6] " maybe "1912 drama Maés Holnap ("Today and Tomorrow")"
• "the part-talking " forgive me, what is "part-talking"? Does it mean that the film has long sections of action without speaking?
• "which brought stardom to John Garfield." is that referenced?
• "magnum opus" I would expect to see in italics.
• consider linking star vehicle.
• "As of 2020, four films..." that reference is dated to 2018 so it's safer to say "As of 2018".
• Ensure linked items are linked each time in sortable tables, e.g. I see "sketch film" isn't linked every time.
• "Projectograph Production;..." why are all of these "productions" with a capital P?
• " Lucy Dorraine; " one r in her surname.
• "Lily Damita" our article calls her Lili.
• María Corda has a diacritic on her i.
• Under a Texas Moon is unnecessarily piped.
• Not the right Norman Foster, appearing in a film three years before his birth.
• "Academy Award Nominations" why is Nomination capitalised?
• Mildly confusing to have the separate table for all Oscar noms and then cherry pick six categories to list in the subsequent section...
• Where is the reference for the first "all-in" Oscars table?
• All tables should have row and col scopes, and captions implemented.
• "Angels With Dirty Faces" small w for with.
• Likewise for "Life with Father".
• Ref 9: pp. 8 should be p. 8
• Ref 10: p. 59, 64 should be pp. 59, 64... suggest you check all single/multiple page references are formatted correctly.
• Ref 45: p. 26-27 should be en-dash (and pp.)
• "The Dawn of Technicolor: 1915-1935" should be en-dash in year range.

That's all I have on a first run. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Manon Melis

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Having nominated the list of goals scored by Vivianne Miedema, all-time goal scorer for the Dutch football team, it seemed fair to work on the list of her predecessor, Manon Melis. I have applied all the comments reviewers kindly provided in the Miedema nonimation to this Melis list article. I believe it is ready. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "She helped the Dutch qualify for their first major finals ever" - lose the unnecessary word "ever"
• "Her last goal, her 59th, she scored in" => "She scored her last goal, her 59th, in"
• " in and against Albania in 2013" - simpler and more elegant to just say "away to Albania"
• "Serbia and Switzerland are the teams against whom" => "Serbia and Switzerland are the teams against which"
• "Her most productive year was 2011. She ended that year with 10 goals from 12 games." - can you merge these two very short sentences together?
• "Four of her goals came from penalties." - placed where this is, there's the slight possibility of confusion as people may think it means four of her goals in 2011 were pens. Can this be reworded or moved somewhere else?
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for taking the time to review. I think I have address all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 21:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Nice work Edwininlondon. A few comments for improving readability:

1. "Hers was the only Dutch goal in a 4–1 defeat." Consider changing to "She scored the only Dutch goal in the 4–1 loss." or "Hers was the only Dutch goal in the 4–1 loss."
2. "She also scored a hat-trick in a FIFA World Cup qualifier match away to Albania in 2013." Consider editing to something like "In September 2013, she scored a hat-trick against Albania during 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification."
3. "Melis played her only matches at a FIFA World Cup finals in 2015, in Canada." I read this as she played in the Final, but the Netherlands was not in the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Final... Being that this article is about her international goals scored, it seems the following sentences are not needed in the lead: "Melis played her only matches at a FIFA World Cup finals in 2015, in Canada. In her four games she did not score; the Dutch were defeated by finalists Japan in the round of 16."
4. Should the sentences starting with "Serbia and Switzerland are the teams against which she has scored the most" be in a new paragraph?
5. The alt tags on the images could be more specific to include "Photo of Dutch international footballer Manon Melis...." instead of "woman". See the Elizabeth II example at WP:MOSALT.

Hmlarson (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review. I believe I have addressed all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Link cap to Cap (sport)
• "even longer goal draught" > drought?
• Link Denmark and Switzerland.

A few very minor points, but that's about it. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review, Kosack. I believe I have addressed the minor points you raised. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Public sculptures by Daniel Chester French

Nominator(s): Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A long time coming list of all of the public sculptures of Daniel Chester French --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 19:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Looks great, just a few minor points......
• The sentence starting "French did not perform well academically" should probably be merged with the the next one
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Same with the sentence starting "French's education ended"
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• And the sentence beginning with "French moved his studio"
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would argue that in the city or neighbourhood column, "16th arrondissement of Paris" should sort under P (maybe being written as "Paris (16th arrondissement)") and The Bronx should sort under B
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• The page has been moved from Public works by Daniel Chester French to Public sculptures by Daniel Chester French --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• @ChrisTheDude and HAL333: I have replied to your concerns --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "with John Quincy Adams Ward" I would say "with the sculptor John Quincy Adams Ward"
  • Done --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "French studied sculpture in Florence, partly out of Thomas Ball's studio, for a year" I do not understand this. He went to Florence for a year? What does "out of Thomas Ball's studio" mean?
  • Thomas Ball had a studio in Florence and French worked out of Ball's studio for part of the year. I broke these apart --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "French's education ended and career began in 1876 when French accepted a contract" The second "French" should be "he".
• "French was commissioned to create his first post-education statue" "first post-education" sounds awkward. Maybe delete?
  • His first public commission was The Minute Man. I deleted --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "statue for a private group, John Harvard" I am not sure what is meant by a "private group" here. The article on the statue says that it was commissioned by an individual for the college.
  • Removed --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "commissions for state, federal, and private groups" None for private individuals?
  • added a clause --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "His final work, the Daniel Webster Memorial, was completed by his daughter Margaret French Cresson." You say this twice.
  • removed --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• The usual rule is that in sortable lists, links such as Forest Hills Cemetery should be repeated each time, not just given on the first usage as sorting will put the items in a different order.
• It would be helpful to have a column for the subjects of the statues, especially as some have no article on the statue itself. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This would be a lot of original research. Most of the entries have an image to serve that purpose --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Please let me know what you think --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I think a recent-ish RfC requires table captions ... in cases like this one, with an sronly template ... AFAICT, this seems to be accepted practice at FLC now, so I added one.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done some trivial copyediting and avoided one redirect in the table; 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 (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. Very attractive images!
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• " centuries. French was born" He was born...
• "he did a" perhaps "he undertook a"?
• " in Florence for" it might be worth adding that this was in Italy as a large portion of readers might assume this is a Florence somewhere in the US.
• "for a year. During part of his year in Florence, French worked out" -> "for a year, during part which he worked out"
• "He would continue to produce statues" -> He continued.. and "produce statues" is a little repetitive.
• "would produce " ->"produced" again.
• "it would remain" -> it remained.
• Note [a] needs a reference.
• Nature abhors a vacuum, put centred em-dash or en-dash in empty "photo" cells.
• In sortable tables, linked all linked items every time as it's not certain which one will come first once re-ordered (e.g. United States Post Office and Sub-Treasury Building (Boston).
• "Glided bronze" you previously linked both parts of "Gilded copper"
• Why isn't Dupont Circle linked?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

List of presidents of the National Rifle Association

Nominator(s): –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it barely missed out on becoming a featured list after I nominated it last year. Sadly, real life obligations got in the way of that for me.
Additionally, Sdkb somewhat recently contributed some improvements that would have addressed some of the concerns raised in the last discussion.
Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Couple of other comments on the lead and the images

• "as of 2019, NRA presidents are chosen by the board of directors" - as we are nearly into 2021, this could do with updating
• "Those who have held the position include former United States president Ulysses S. Grant, Harlon Carter, American Football League commissioner Joe Foss, and David Keene." - seems odd to list the profession/main claim to fame of two people but not the other two, especially since the "other two" are (to me at least) the least famous of the four, so some context as to who they are/were would be useful.......
• The photo caption "Retired Marine officer "Red Mike" Edson (2006)" implies that the picture was taken in 2006, but that clearly can't have been the case as by that year Edson had been dead for over 50 years. So why is that year there.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Fixed the year, and added descriptive titles to other people in the liss. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Another comment; if there is a good source on it, it would probably be WP:DUE to mention changes in the type or behavior of presidents following the Revolt at Cincinnati. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I probably could find more info regarding how the role of the EVP has changed since the Cincinnati Revolt than the president. That's mostly because the focus of the Revolt was on how the Executive Vice President was selected (by rank-and-file vs the board of directors) and who held it (a partisan or the old guard). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are NRA presidents now chosen by the board of directors?
  • No clue because no source has explained that.
• There's nothing wrong with it, but I am curious as to why some presidents required four sources while others only needed one.
  • If I had several really solid sources for a given entry, I decided my preference would be to include all of them. However, sometimes it became necessary because not every source has all information on each person.
• Since the group is based in the US, shouldn't the dates be in American English?
  • Sighs, yeah... fixed.
• Are none of the other NRA presidents notable enough to have their own article?
  • It is not my place to say. Though, I will say that Kayne Robinson now has a proper target.
• Why's Washington Adjutant General redlinked?
  • I've changed [[Washington Adjutant General]] to [[Washington (state)|Washington]] [[adjutant general]]
• Note b doesn't need a period.
  • But can it have one anyways?

That's all that I noticed. ~ HAL333 04:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: Responded. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333, IHateAccounts, and ChrisTheDude: Anything new to add? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about this FLC. At a quick glance, the statement about James W Porter II slagging off Obama is still there with no context or explanation as to why it's relevant - can you address that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: In 2013, it was a much bigger story than you might think.[11][12] (also mentioned: [13][14][15]) That it was included in the Atlantic article several years later as an example of controversial statements from NRA presidents holds a particular amount of weight with me that I think it is pretty WP:DUE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, but you need to give some context within the article to why the quote was relevant to his position as NRA President and not just a random comment he made because he happened to dislike Obama. The ABC News source expands the quote to say that he also said "His entire administration is anti-gun" - adding that to the article will make it clear why the statement is relevant to this list. As it stands, there's no real context as to why the quote is pertinent to this article. Porter's personal views on Obama in and of themselves aren't relevant to this article, but his personal views on Obama in relation to the latter's views on gun control potentially are. Does that make sense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

An easy work around would be mentioning Obama's NRA rating in a parenthetical phrase. ~ HAL333 03:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude and HAL333: Better? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's okay. ~ HAL333 20:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

More comments

• There are a few sea of blue issues in the table.
  • Removed duplicate links
• Could you add scope to the name column?
  • Done?
• I would avoid sources directly produced by the NRA.
  • Out of 109 references, only six are from NRA-owned publications. They are only used in conjunction with another source (generally this one).
    • I would still remove them - it's a primary source. ~ HAL333 19:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• To keep it in line with the others, make the Burnside caption a phrase rather than a sentence.
  • Fixed

That's all. ~ HAL333 05:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:HAL333: Responded. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Could you also clearly explain the vice presidents? ~ HAL333 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  @HAL333: Which one? The executive vice president or first/second/third vice presidents? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. I have no idea and nor will the reader. Are they also figureheads? Are they selected the same way? For the same purpose? Etc. It may be better just not to mention them, but I don't know. ~ HAL333 19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  @HAL333: They are selected the same way; they are figure-heads, and they are just there to be future presidents. I have reliable sources for the first thing, but not the other claims. Regardless, I don't think it would be that confusing given that many organizations have multiple vice presidents (first vice president, second vice president, executive vice president, etc.) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: "There have been 65 NRA presidents, serving 67 distinct terms." - I feel like this might be improved noting the two who have served multiple/separated terms? IHateAccounts (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I halfheartedly supported last year, but with the changes above I don't see a reason to oppose --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see alt text with each image.
• "Post-war photograph..." which war?
• I think, in general, the image captions could note when the individuals were president of the NRA.
• On my screen, the images squash the references into three columns, so I would either remove one, or use the {{clear}} template.
• References which need a subscription, like the NYT, need url-access=subscription added to the citation template.
• References which are PDFs need format=pdf added to the citation template.
• "two Union veterans " I would just pipe "Union" here, not "two Union veterans" in totality because that's a bit Easter egg.
• Ahh, then you link Union to Union (American Civil War). why would Union be linked differently?
• "would become" -> "became"
• " have served purposes and effects" this is a bit odd, what are you really saying?
• I would link Obama.
• When you say they serve out two one-year terms, e.g. is that how they do "2015–2017", "2013–2015 " etc? I.e. each "Term" shown in the table is actually two "sub-terms"? I'm mildly confused, especially when you say "67 distinct terms " when it looks like a lot of those were made up of "two one-year terms"... You see my confusion?
• Don't use "hash" (#) to represent number, per MOS:HASH.
• In a sortable table, linkable items should be linked every time as it's not guaranteed that post-sort the linked item will come first.
• "May 16, 1925 along " comma after year.
• "Irvine C. Porter" is redlinked, but none of the presidents without articles are red-linked. Are they really non-notable? Wouldn't the president of the NRA pass WP:GNG? If so, they should be linked.

That's all I have on a quick pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography of E. T. Whittaker

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)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Alexandra

• Note that I'm not a mathematician (or historian). I'm more of an arts kind of person, and I'm judging the writing as writing - checking that it makes sense to me and that it is well written, rather than whether it is correct about the subject.
• Please add brief descriptive alt text to all images, to aid readers with vision impairments.
• I would recommend splitting the lead into two paragraphs for ease of reading.
• Titles should not sort on the, a, an, etc. - "The beginning and end of the world" should for example sort on "Beginning and...". You can achieve this with {{Sort}}.
• Sorting of dates is currently also broken (try clicking "Date" under the "Maths and science" heading, and you will see - 1950 is followed by three April releases from different years, then August 1928...). You can solve this by wrapping the dates in the {{Date table sorting}} template.
• Otherwise this looks good! Please {{ping}} me when you have addressed the above, and I will be with you again asap!--Alexandra^IDV 07:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Alexandra IDV: I believe I have completed all of the above improvements. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Excellent, thank you!--Alexandra^IDV 04:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support--Alexandra^IDV 04:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• It would be helpful to place his lifespan (year–year)[ref] after his name in the lede.
• You should break the "Topic and Notes" column into separate "Subject" and "Notes" columns like in the first table.
• I would remove the sortability of the "Notes" column.

Really a wonderful list. ~ HAL333 15:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review

This one has certainly been waiting around for a while; a lot of refs, so this may take make a day or two to get through Aza24 (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

Publications

• Looks good here

References

• Refs 1 & 2 should be pp.
• Ref 4 should be p.
• ref 32 should be pp.
• page ranges should always be with – not a dash (-) for refs 62 & 71
• The "Further reading" should be titled something else, perhaps "Bibliography" or "Sources". On Wikipedia we only use "Further reading" as a list of additional sources that are not already cited, where as the current one seems to include a lot that are already cited. See MOS:FURTHER for more details
• You had most of the journals and publishers linked; I tried to link some ones missing a link, but if you can take a glance to see if I missed any, it would be much appreciated

Both

• In both References & publications you use four retrieval dates 25, 165 + 15 & 69. Looking for consistency: I would think that the publications 25 and 165 don't need it, since you don't include them for any other publication. As a web source, using it for ref 15 makes sense, but ref 69 is the only journal you include it for, and as such, I would think it ought to be removed there

Reliabillity

• I have no doubts on the quality of sources used.

Verifiability

• Admittedly, I've only gone through a few spot-checks, but the ones I did check were fine. Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• courtesy ping to @Footlessmouse: who seems to be on a wikibreak Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• It would be helpful for context to give his dates of birth and death immediately after his name.
• "three titles that remain in circulation over a century after their initial publications." You author a book, not a title. Also, maybe list the books here?
• "in popular magazines like Scientific American" I would not describe Scientific American as a popular magazine.
• "The bibliography includes eleven total books and monographs" "total" is ungrammatical and unnecessary.
• "John Lighton Synge reviewed ten of Whittaker's papers when he wrote about Whittaker's contributions to electromagnetism and general relativity.[3] Among other tributes as part of the same memorial volume of the Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society" What does "same" mean here? It would be clearer if you gave details of the memorial volume in the first sentence.
• "several biographical articles, including one for Albert Einstein written just a few months before his death" Whose death - Whittaker's or Einstein's? Also I would usually take "for Albert Einstein" to mean commissioned by him. I think "about Albert Einstein" would be better.
• " A Course of Modern Analysis, Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies, and The Calculus of Observations" I suggest giving the year of publication in brackets after each title.
• "Despite the success of these textbooks" Why "despite"?
• "The book went through four editions, published in 1917" You only list three. Perhaps move the first edition details here.
• No change needed, but I see that Aether theories does not mention Descartes and René Descartes does not mention Aether theories. This is obviously a gap in Wikipedia.
• "The Calculus of Observations or A Short Course in Interpolation" There is confusion over the title here. First you appear to give alternative titles, then you combine them and then you say that A Short Course was the title of part of the book published separately.
• "Kilmister later wrote a book on the topic, titled Eddington's search for a fundamental theory, which was published by Cambridge University Press in 1994,[36] and was itself reviewed by David Kaiser,[37] among others." Why is this relevant?
• "Whittaker spoke at the annual Arthur Stanley Eddington Memorial Lecture in 1952, which was subsequently published by American Scientist" I would say "Whittaker gave the annual Arthur Stanley Eddington Memorial Lecture".
• "He also wrote several popular articles in magazines such as Scientific American" I may be wrong but I doubt whether any of his articles would have been regarded by readers as "popular".
• I would say obituary of Einstein, not for him.
• There is a typo in publication 86.
• "Book reviews" There is an excessive gap between this heading and the text.
• "Popular articles" I think "Other articles" would be a better title.
• I do not think it is helpful for readers to list reviews in the main text where you do not give details of what the reviewer said. Perhaps you could add a separate note section for these reviews.
• A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Footlessmouse are you going to return to this nomination? If we get no response in a few days, we'll need to archive this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

AIFF Player of the Year Awards

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)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

• There's some inconsistent formatting between websites: the-aiff.com vs Indian Super League (why not indiansuperleague.com?)

Consistency should be between same website, not different, i.e, if once put the-aiff.com, then another one should not be AIFF. But it can be IndianSuperLeague and it should be consistent for all IndianSuperLeague citations.

• links for The Times of India, The Hindu and Sportstar should be every time

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)

Comments Edwininlondon

I'm no expert on AIFF but a few comments:

• Why is this article not called AIFF Player of the Year Awards? The text in bold style in the opening sentence and the article title are meant to be the same (see for example 69th Academy Awards).
• The AIFF Women’s Player of the Year award --> better to be consistent with the opening sentence and have a capital for Award here too
• Between 2001 and 2012, no women's award was given out --> bit odd. The 2012 seems to indicate this range is inclusive but 2001 did have an award, so inconsistent. Better perhaps to avoid the scope issue altogether and rephrase to something along the lines of "After the inaugural award, no women's awards were given out until 2012 when ..."
• Other than Bembem Devi, Bala Devi has also won the award twice in 2015 and 2016. --> a comma is needed after twice. Now it reads as if many awards were handed out in 2015.
• AIFF Emerging Player of the Year award --> capital A again
• was introduced in 2013, a similar award for women was introduced in 2015 --> better would be "was introduced in 2013, and a similar award for women in 2015.
• List of AIFF Men's Player of the Year winners --> List of AIFF Men's Player of the Year Award winners
• Sunil Chhetri has received the award a record six times in 2007 --> a comma is needed after times
• and most recently for the 2018−19 season --> why the change to seasons? Why not the year? Did something change in the way the awards worked? If so, that should be mentioned somewhere.
• Bembem Devi was the first recipient of the award in 2001; it was not awarded between 2002 and 2012. Bembem Devi retained it when it was awarded again in 2013 --> that is a lot of repetition of award. Perhaps something along the lines of "Bembem Devi was the first recipient of the women's award in 2001. Between 2002 and 2012 the contest was not held. Bembem Devi won again when the women's award was restarted, in 2013."
• Add the club names the player was playing for, similar to Premier League Player of the Season
• Add tables with awards won by club, similar to Premier League Player of the Season

I did do a small spotcheck of sources and all looks fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Drat8sub hasn't edited for a month, if no-one else wants to pick this up I guess we'll have to archive it in a couple of days time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I'll partially handle the comments. Edwininlondon, I resolved all but point 1, and the last two. GeraldWL 07:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis ok, thanks, let's see how it goes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, The Rambling Man: I shall attempt to deal with the last 2 points. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've started this but need some guidance as I know nothing about football in India. None of the award sources I checked list the winner's club, so this needs to be pieced together. It seems these awards are handed out in December. I think the seasons run from autumn to spring. Taking a random winner, Eugeneson Lyngdoh who won in 2015, my best guess is that he won the award for his performance at Bengaluru during the 2014-15 season and his performance at Pune City during the 2015-16 season. So in the club column both Bengaluru and Pune City should be listed. Am I doing this right? There are quite a few who have moved clubs a lot. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm abandoning this. I can't find any sources for the clubs these players played for. The usual sources have nothing on the winners from the 90s. So what that decision and thanks to edits by Gerald Waldo Luis, I now support. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Support with comments (resolved) from Gerald Waldo Luis

• "In 1998 and 1999, no winner was announced." Perhaps "No winner was announced in 1998 and 1999."
• "Between 2001 and 2012, no women's award was given out." Perhaps "No winner was given out from 2002 up to 2012." The list says that Devi is the recipient in 2001, so why is it "Between 2001 and 2012"?
• "a similar award for women was introduced in 2015." Perhaps say the name of the award, if there's one?
• Recommend adding alt texts.

GeraldWL 10:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Drat8sub I will close this nomination in two days if no-one steps up to take it over as the nominator hasn't edited since last November. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: bump --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't understand why the men and women table can't be merged like it is for the emerging award.
• Suddenly it goes from 2017 to "2018–19" so did the award change to being a "seasonal" thing?
• 1998, 1999 sorts out of order.
• Looks like we have an image of Bembem Devi which could be cropped for use here.
• Ref 5 is missing a work/publisher/website.
• Ref 6, "The Hindu" isn't a publisher, it's a work.
• Sometimes India Today refs have a publisher, sometimes not.
• Ref 3 and ref 13 have same work but different publisher.
• I'm not seeing this award mentioned in the "Football in India" template so it should either be added or the navigational template should be removed.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of autonomous areas by country

Notified: Gary, Cordyceps-Zombie, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Politics

This is an old 2008 promotion, and it seems to have not been maintained in the interim. The lead is quite short and contains only two citations (2). Many of its entries explicitly lack citations, many of the apparent citations are notes, and many actual citations are just to statoids.com. Some entries are questionable (eg. French DOMs, Jakarta), or to meet only part of the leads inclusion criteria (eg. Spanish regions can not all, by definition, "in relation to the majority of other sub-national territories in the same country, enjoy a special status including some legislative powers"). CMD (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delist per nom --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Abingdon Boys School discography

Notified: Town of Cats, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meets our accessibility guidelines as required under WP:FLCR #5. Specifically, the tables have no captions, and they lack unique row-headers, which should be the title of the release in each case. RexxS (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: but why not fix it to comply rather than nominating for removal? Like you said, MOS:DTAB indicates that scopes and captions should be used. Heartfox (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have time to fix every FL with accessibility flaws. I think it's preferable to teach an active WikiProject how to fix the FLs themselves. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Added scope="col" to each column. Honestly, I think a bigger issue would be most of the references going to Amazon store pages. The accessibility issues described are easy to rectify, but if there aren't reliable sources, then that indicates deeper issues. (Edit: Looks like Amazon is OK for release dates. Not sure about the notes, however, but since most of them are basically "they did this one song" or are cited to Oricon, I would guess it would be fine? I don't know.) MSG17 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Update JohnFromPinckney has thoroughly overhauled the article, and all tables now have captions, sensible row headers and appropriate scopes. It may be that all of these types of FL dating from 2010 and earlier need a similar makeover to bring them up to our current standards, but I believe that Abingdon Boys School discography should now remain a Featured List. Hopefully the FLC director or delegates will agree and we can close this nomination. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Dubai

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

There are barely any pictures on this page, probably due to a mass purge of UAE building images on Commons some years ago. I might try to add some more images to this page in the next few weeks, but for now I don't think it deserves to be featured. Kestreltail (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Kestreltail Pictures can be added with the WP:FLRC process, what part(s) of WP:WIAFL does this fail? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Other than the pictures, a number of red links. Kestreltail (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Kestreltail Red links are permitted. What proportion of the items in the list are red links? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• 24 out of 74 items, or about a third. There are also some red links surprisingly near the start of the list, but if none of these are considered problems then I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Kestreltail (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delist - Wow, I have not seen a featured list with such lack of citations, some entire tables missing citations, random facts missing citations. It also has wild (possibly outdated) speculation running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, and has outdated style "This list ranks". Says "currently under construction" with no indication of what "currently means". Will be a lot of work to bring this up to standard. Mattximus (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Bucharest

Notified: WikiProject_Romania

While I fully appreciate the difficulty of maintaining such a list up to date with the lack of available informatino, I am nominating this for featured list removal because if currently fails the Comprehensiveness and Stability criteria. The following issues are observable:

1. The lead is not in sync with the inclusion criteria: it mentions 50 m, while the inclusion criteria is 60 m.
2. Lacks some buildings present in the Romanian version, specifically older, communist blocks (e.g. "Bloc 15D").
3. Sources do not support the data (e.g. for Ana tower the height is not mentioned in the source) or are outdated (e.g. for Monaco towers it seems to be an old version of the website from before the buildings were completed; the current completion date seems to be 2010).
4. The notes are out of date (e.g. for Bucharest Corporate Center) or present original research not supported by the source (for Millenium Business Center).
5. Abuses internal links by linking all entries of the same group of buildings to the article.

Before nominating I left the same message on the TP of the article and WikiProject Romania.Strainu (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• This looks salvageable but needs some work. Additional issues I notice:
  • File:Bucharest Height Chart by Vlad Tronciu.jpg is all but sure to go out of date—August 2020 is alright enough for now, but this is a serious WP:ENDURE concern.
  • Coordinates columns shouldn't be sortable, and there should be a references column.
  • Some reference dates are formatting as YYYY-MM-DD.
  • There should be images of all the buildings, as these aren't really hard to obtain for anyone living in the city. The image column should also probably be removed for the "under construction" section as its empty.
  • A dynamic map of where the tallest buildings are located within the city would be nice.

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Romania doesn't have FoP, so images of every building should not be a requirement (per WP:FUC).--Strainu (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delist This one isn't that bad. With a bit of work, someone could get it back up relatively quickly. ~ HAL333 05:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delist- Certainly not up to current standards. Many outdated terminology "This lists ranks", some of the under construction buildings have dates indicating they should be completed last year. Lead year out of date. The "proposed" or "approved" sections shouldn't even be there, they run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of work to bring it up to current standards. Mattximus (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delist --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of schools in Cardenal Caro

Notified: WikiProject Schools

This page is maybe salvageable but would definitely need some work (and it's on such an obscure topic, I'm not sure that that work will be forthcoming). Issues include outdated enrollment figures, failure to sort the years column properly, potential overuse of foreign terms/italics and other minor style issues, and missing websites. There have been some moves or something that have turned the nominator into a redlink, so I'm not sure if they're still around or how to reach them if they are. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have updated the article with the latest enrollment info from the Ministry of Education. Although 101 schools are listed, 39 have no students and may be closed. One such school, Quebrada del Nuevo Reino, had students in 2014 and I have removed it from the current list. --Kuatrero (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delist There are a lot of strange problems with this list. The lead does not match the list (for example, largest school population number), there are categories defined in the lead but not including terms in the table (what does Middle Major mean?), some of the paragraph under schools should be footnotes, "The enrollments given here are" is outdated terminology (tautological) and could simply be (2020) in the column header. There need to be more citations (how do we know there are 26 schools in the lead, what source is that from?). It's not impossible with some effort to bring it up to standard if someone is willing, but it's extremely niche. Mattximus (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delist --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of De La Salle University people

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)

• Delist Per all of the points by Sdkb. Some of the inclusions are definitely questionable, such as one redlinked alumnus known for being "Wanted by US police as a pedophile"?... ~ HAL333 05:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delist - Red linked alumni should all be removed. And I'm not sure what "people" means in the title. Perhaps narrowing the scope to alumni would be wiser, with a separate page for presidents. The "relationship" column is unsourced and I'm not sure what it even means. Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delist --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of mammals of Canada

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([16]) 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)

• I do not know what is meant by the "sourcing tag".
• The main problem is that, due to the lower standards in 2007, the article was promoted in spite of the limited references. The lack of images is also due to the article's age as all the available images I have checked are dated after 2007. Is the nominator Circeus interested in updating the article to modern standards? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• I definitely do not have the energy or time to work through the list all over at this point, especially with libraries shut down here b/c of coronavirus. Circéus (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delist – no in-line citations in lead or tables to verify facts, poor accessibility due to lack of proper alt text, and poor visual style in violation of FLCR #5a due to inconsistent text formatting. I don't think this is going to get updated any time soon. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delist --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)